Queen Angel in a SPS tank? Any experience?

[chrisqueenz]

Just as title states, would like to know if anyone has had sucess with this combo?

Thanks

[snorvich]

I would never try it.

[SDguy]

A local with a large tank (300g or so, IIRC) had one...it ate his SPS. Sorry, but queens are large and destructive, as far as angels go. Besides, I'd pick something that gets less HUGE! :)

[jjk_reef00]

I have an 11" one in my 300 gallon for about 6 months. He hasn't touched my sps yet. I feed very heavy. He has some soft corals he is currently working on. Ate zoas, polyups, a kenya tree. For some reason he likes to eat things lower in the tank. Anything higher in the tank he hasn't touched. I have a full patch of 50+ polyups high in my tank and they haven't been touched.

Can be very aggressive when he's not happy.

[chrisqueenz]

The more I research the more I think I am going to stay away.lol. I dont really have much LPS but worried about the SPS in the tank and even the aggresive issues I might face

[Luiz Rocha]

Just to stress what everyone else said, this fish gets very large and will eat everything. I kept one for a long time, and for the most part it left hard corals alone but went for the softies. Granted, I had very few hard corals when I kept it.

[NexDog]

jjk_reef00 - how's that Queen doing. I'm starting to think about getting one. :)

[melanotaenia]

Before giving up, I would read through this thread:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1738995

The owner of the tank has kept his Queen Angel for some time in his tank with a packed SPS display. The tank seems to be doing very well. So, there are success stories with Queen Angels and SPS colonies :)

[evermann]

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but what an disturbing and not to mention expensive lesson to learn when the 98% of reefers that think its a bad idea is proven right.

[melanotaenia]

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but what an disturbing and not to mention expensive lesson to learn when the 98% of reefers that think its a bad idea is proven right.

If no one tried to push the envelope and try new things in this hobby, then we would all be in the dark ages of marine fish keeping. I for one embrace hobbyists like Chingchai and Mafia who are willing to take chances on fish and then see a good end result.

[jmaneyapanda]

If no one tried to push the envelope and try new things in this hobby, then we would all be in the dark ages of marine fish keeping. I for one embrace hobbyists like Chingchai and Mafia who are willing to take chances on fish and then see a good end result.

What if they see a bad result, even after repeated "warnings" of such? I do agree, that someone has to be the first to try. However, I hope that such efforts are done in prpeparation and research and effort, and not just money and status.

[scchase]

98% of reefers 10 years ago said all large angels would not work in any reef system today there are many people on this board that keep many different species of alrge angels in many different types of reef systems.

[gofor100]

If no one tried to push the envelope and try new things in this hobby, then we would all be in the dark ages of marine fish keeping. I for one embrace hobbyists like Chingchai and Mafia who are willing to take chances on fish and then see a good end result.

Good to see that you've changed your mind-set since my thread looking for information on people's experiences on angelfish in reef aquariums (see "Debate of the Decade") :dance:

My thread had to be put on hold because of moving the tank and getting it ready for my next angel.

As far as this thread goes, I continue to believe that your success will depend on a number of factors, which include the obvious ones, like tank size, but will also include other factors like feeding schedules, diet, amount of LR for grazing, the size/age of the fish when placed into captivity, etc.

I agree with melanotaenia in that we need people to experiment, otherwise, this hobby would never truly advance/progress.

[rekn]

theyre aggressive as hell and have massive cheak spines-they know how to use em too:(

[melanotaenia]

What if they see a bad result, even after repeated "warnings" of such? I do agree, that someone has to be the first to try. However, I hope that such efforts are done in prpeparation and research and effort, and not just money and status.

The fact that they have come on this board and are heeding the advice from others I think proves that a proactive "research" focus approach is being taken in this situation.

Plus, a Queen Angel does not really scream money and status like some of the other fish people pay thousands for on these and other reef boards, so I don't think in this case the Queen Angel is being considered as a "status" symbol.

People will be successful with certain fish stocking choices, and others will not. We learn the behaviors of fishes through these trial and errors. While some fish may be statistically proven to be a menace to a reef tank, that does not mean that the null hypothesis always hold true, evident by some reefers who choose to take the more adventurous and non-conventional approach to stocking and keeping their tanks. Just as others on this thread have pointed out, in the past people would not dare put large angels, or *gasp* triggers into reef tanks. Now we are seeing large adult angels and Crosshatch pairs swimming in reef tanks without a care in the world when it comes to devouring one's precious SPS or LPS corals.

There are so many factors at play in these situations, as pointed out by gofor100 including feeding regimen, swimming space, tankmates, coral selection, and the natural behavior of the particular fish you have. Is a smaller Queen going to be more docile and less likely to eat corals compared to an adult caught counterpart? Maybe, maybe not. But we take these experiments one because, well, we want to see the end result to we can progress this hobby and our understanding of the behaviors of fish from the wild in our little glass boxes.

I embrace those that choose to be forward thinking in the hobby, while acknowledging that, yes, there are people who will not agree with one's decisions, but that does not mean their choices and ideas are automatically incorrect. One must realize that with this hobby, like most things in this world, there is always exceptions to every rule.

So...you can go by statistics, and numbers, or you could be the more adventurous hobbyist and think outside the box

I prefer the latter ;)

[rekn]

xhatches have been kept for awhile now, its also been known ( at least as long as ive been alive) that those in its genus are plankton feeders and not coral eaters.

queens have been and will always be lps destroyers, they will always be mean-these things are species specific and that will never change.

[gofor100]

xhatches have been kept for awhile now, its also been known ( at least as long as ive been alive) that those in its genus are plankton feeders and not coral eaters.

queens have been and will always be lps destroyers, they will always be mean-these things are species specific and that will never change.

It's true that some angels may be more likely to eat/pick at certain types of corals (i.e., LPS, SPS, Softies, Zoas, etc.), but remember the OP was asking whether the Queen can be kept specifically in an SPS tank... so although your statement might be valid (that the Queen destroys LPS), its kind of beyond the scope of the thread.

Just thought I'd get us back on point :beer:

[jmaneyapanda]

The fact that they have come on this board and are heeding the advice from others I think proves that a proactive "research" focus approach is being taken in this situation.

Plus, a Queen Angel does not really scream money and status like some of the other fish people pay thousands for on these and other reef boards, so I don't think in this case the Queen Angel is being considered as a "status" symbol.

People will be successful with certain fish stocking choices, and others will not. We learn the behaviors of fishes through these trial and errors. While some fish may be statistically proven to be a menace to a reef tank, that does not mean that the null hypothesis always hold true, evident by some reefers who choose to take the more adventurous and non-conventional approach to stocking and keeping their tanks. Just as others on this thread have pointed out, in the past people would not dare put large angels, or *gasp* triggers into reef tanks. Now we are seeing large adult angels and Crosshatch pairs swimming in reef tanks without a care in the world when it comes to devouring one's precious SPS or LPS corals.

There are so many factors at play in these situations, as pointed out by gofor100 including feeding regimen, swimming space, tankmates, coral selection, and the natural behavior of the particular fish you have. Is a smaller Queen going to be more docile and less likely to eat corals compared to an adult caught counterpart? Maybe, maybe not. But we take these experiments one because, well, we want to see the end result to we can progress this hobby and our understanding of the behaviors of fish from the wild in our little glass boxes.

I embrace those that choose to be forward thinking in the hobby, while acknowledging that, yes, there are people who will not agree with one's decisions, but that does not mean their choices and ideas are automatically incorrect. One must realize that with this hobby, like most things in this world, there is always exceptions to every rule.

So...you can go by statistics, and numbers, or you could be the more adventurous hobbyist and think outside the box

I prefer the latter ;)

Again, what of those who come, and DO NOT heed advice. But instead, simply announce and pictorially document what they are doing? I agree, some do actually legitimately seek advice. While other seem to constantly ignore majority, if not absolute advice.

I would disagree about queen angels not being status symbols in large reef tanks. How many do you see? They are rare there, by history. If they are indeed common, please show me some other threads. Furthermore, I was discussion the principle, not this example. It seems, as my impression, that many people "try" things, in order to puff their ego and status. Just my impression.

And, again, I do not disagree that calculated risks are important and necessary for growth and enlightenment. However, I STRONGLY feel there needs to be some better basis behind it than "I am hoping for the best", or "We'll give it a try", or "my dealer says it will work". None of those bear any more significance or importance than just saying "I wanted to do it, so I did". We are dealing with live animals here, and DO have the responsibility to show due process and care in their husbandry. Otherwise, we are the criminals that the aquarium hobby detractors paint us out to be.

You are completely correct, just because some disagree doesn't make them incorrect. However, if this is indeed, forward thinking, as you state it to be, we should all be able to discuss and learn from it, to decipher WHY it works now (as opposed to common practice), WHAT is done differently, and HOW we can all be successful. Not just "I hope it works". That isnt forward thinking. It is negligent behavior.

[rekn]

i dont know what country you are from but i am from florida, a big portion of this fishes range, and i can say with upmost certainty that the species is common.

this isnt a counterpoint to you jmaney, i actually agree with everything you said, im posting to inform you of their availability.

gofor, my previous post is on target.

"The more I research the more I think I am going to stay away.lol. I dont really have much LPS but worried about the SPS in the tank and even the aggresive issues I might face"

i brought up personal experience with what my problems with this species were. problems are relitive so i tried listing them all-the fact this fish gets near 2' long might not be a problem to the OP. the same could be said for aggression and coral eating habbits (some people like mean fish, some dont have corals). i throw all the problems i had on the table so the OP could sift through and decide wich ones were relavent to them.




Again, what of those who come, and DO NOT heed advice. But instead, simply announce and pictorially document what they are doing? I agree, some do actually legitimately seek advice. While other seem to constantly ignore majority, if not absolute advice.

I would disagree about queen angels not being status symbols in large reef tanks. How many do you see? They are rare there, by history. If they are indeed common, please show me some other threads. Furthermore, I was discussion the principle, not this example. It seems, as my impression, that many people "try" things, in order to puff their ego and status. Just my impression.

And, again, I do not disagree that calculated risks are important and necessary for growth and enlightenment. However, I STRONGLY feel there needs to be some better basis behind it than "I am hoping for the best", or "We'll give it a try", or "my dealer says it will work". None of those bear any more significance or importance than just saying "I wanted to do it, so I did". We are dealing with live animals here, and DO have the responsibility to show due process and care in their husbandry. Otherwise, we are the criminals that the aquarium hobby detractors paint us out to be.

You are completely correct, just because some disagree doesn't make them incorrect. However, if this is indeed, forward thinking, as you state it to be, we should all be able to discuss and learn from it, to decipher WHY it works now (as opposed to common practice), WHAT is done differently, and HOW we can all be successful. Not just "I hope it works". That isnt forward thinking. It is negligent behavior.

[melanotaenia]

I would disagree about queen angels not being status symbols in large reef tanks. How many do you see? They are rare there, by history. If they are indeed common, please show me some other threads. Furthermore, I was discussion the principle, not this example. It seems, as my impression, that many people "try" things, in order to puff their ego and status. Just my impression.


This statement I completely disagree with; I hardly believe that many people on here are trying to keep fish to puff up their egos, but rather learn about harder to keep fish, hone their husbandry skills, and expose other hobbyists to the success (and non-success) stories of certain species that are brought into the aquarium trade.

Science is all about experimentation. We experiment with animals all the time; this is nothing new. The idea that we may kill one or two fish (or more) in the process of learning about the fish and its care is just a natural part of the scientific learning process, and to say that doing this is a negative thing in our hobby is not entirely accurate, if in fact it is done in the name of science and research.

Sure, you are going to lose fish along the way; however, at some point, the losses decrease due to increased knowledge and information gained from those fish that died in the name of research. And they represent the first steps into a more successful keeping of that same fish later on down the line.

If after researching the husbandry of a particular fish, and successful keeping in the aquarium cannot be attained (such as in the case of many obligate coral feeding butterflies), then we, as the marine community, have documentation of certain fish that just do not belong in the aquarium trade, because for whatever reason, they cannot adapt to the artificial ecosystem we put them into.

As a side note, I am not really sure where you are referring to that Queen Angels are such a rare sighting. Here in the states, there are plenty of them, I see them at LFS all time. Additionally, I have many videos and pictures of tanks from over in Japan that keep Queen Angels as well. I think the beauty of the fish far outweighs the want of the hobbyist to own it because of it's "rarity" in certain fish markets.


But hey, I am a researcher, so I see animal experimentation, even in the aquarium trade, as a natural course of learning about the animal and how to care for it. Losing one or two fish in the name of learning how to keep hundreds later on down the line seems like a good thing for the research community.

[rekn]

Science is all about experimentation. We experiment with animals all the time; this is nothing new. The idea that we may kill one or two fish (or more) in the process of learning about the fish and its care is just a natural part of the scientific learning process, and to say that doing this is a negative thing in our hobby is not entirely accurate, if in fact it is done in the name of science and research.

what cave have you lived in?

[melanotaenia]

what cave have you lived in?

the one that helps create life saving drugs from learning about the behaviors these drugs have on mice, among other lab animals, that give their lives up in the name of science so that you, and millions of other individuals, can have the proper medications and treatment available for diseases. There are many trials that are not suited for humans; this is where the use of animals in science is merited.

But hey, if labs and hospitals across the country are doing this then I guess a lot of us researchers, according to you, must be living in caves.

[jmaneyapanda]

i dont know what country you are from but i am from florida, a big portion of this fishes range, and i can say with upmost certainty that the species is common.

this isnt a counterpoint to you jmaney, i actually agree with everything you said, im posting to inform you of their availability.

.


I was referring to them being kept in large reef tanks. I know they are abundant.

[rekn]

the one that helps create life saving drugs from learning about the behaviors these drugs have on mice, among other lab animals, that give their lives up in the name of science so that you, and millions of other individuals, can have the proper medications and treatment available for diseases. There are many trials that are not suited for humans; this is where the use of animals in science is merited.

But hey, if labs and hospitals across the country are doing this then I guess a lot of us researchers, according to you, must be living in caves.

to stay on topic- i wouldnt put a queen in a reef, especially if you want to add other fish later

[jmaneyapanda]

This statement I completely disagree with; I hardly believe that many people on here are trying to keep fish to puff up their egos, but rather learn about harder to keep fish, hone their husbandry skills, and expose other hobbyists to the success (and non-success) stories of certain species that are brought into the aquarium trade.

Science is all about experimentation. We experiment with animals all the time; this is nothing new. The idea that we may kill one or two fish (or more) in the process of learning about the fish and its care is just a natural part of the scientific learning process, and to say that doing this is a negative thing in our hobby is not entirely accurate, if in fact it is done in the name of science and research.

Sure, you are going to lose fish along the way; however, at some point, the losses decrease due to increased knowledge and information gained from those fish that died in the name of research. And they represent the first steps into a more successful keeping of that same fish later on down the line.

If after researching the husbandry of a particular fish, and successful keeping in the aquarium cannot be attained (such as in the case of many obligate coral feeding butterflies), then we, as the marine community, have documentation of certain fish that just do not belong in the aquarium trade, because for whatever reason, they cannot adapt to the artificial ecosystem we put them into.

As a side note, I am not really sure where you are referring to that Queen Angels are such a rare sighting. Here in the states, there are plenty of them, I see them at LFS all time. Additionally, I have many videos and pictures of tanks from over in Japan that keep Queen Angels as well. I think the beauty of the fish far outweighs the want of the hobbyist to own it because of it's "rarity" in certain fish markets.


But hey, I am a researcher, so I see animal experimentation, even in the aquarium trade, as a natural course of learning about the animal and how to care for it. Losing one or two fish in the name of learning how to keep hundreds later on down the line seems like a good thing for the research community.

Again, here is my issue- what is being learned by these "experiments"? If I throw 5 powder blues in a tank, despite everyone elses advice, what is learned? Regardless of outcome. That it IS possible? Or that it IS with other considerations? Or that Im lucky? Or what? And how dopes that apply to the 50 million times its failed before?

And, per the queen reference, see my above comment. I am not speaking availability, but presence in large reef tanks.

[jmaneyapanda]

the one that helps create life saving drugs from learning about the behaviors these drugs have on mice, among other lab animals, that give their lives up in the name of science so that you, and millions of other individuals, can have the proper medications and treatment available for diseases. There are many trials that are not suited for humans; this is where the use of animals in science is merited.

But hey, if labs and hospitals across the country are doing this then I guess a lot of us researchers, according to you, must be living in caves.

Comparing this, to putting incompatible fish in a tank is comparing apples and shoelaces.

[melanotaenia]

Again, here is my issue- what is being learned by these "experiments"? If I throw 5 powder blues in a tank, despite everyone elses advice, what is learned? Regardless of outcome. That it IS possible? Or that it IS with other considerations? Or that Im lucky? Or what? And how dopes that apply to the 50 million times its failed before?

And, per the queen reference, see my above comment. I am not speaking availability, but presence in large reef tanks.

I see your point; there are many experiments done in tanks that are done purely to see if it "can" be done. But, there are still other experiments that I feel are worth undertaking. For instance, a new fish to the hobby, that is not something a lot of people know anything about. It would be good to try and house that fish, learns its husbandry, and see if it can indeed be kept successfully in the hobby. If after research, careful planning, and expert husbandry skills cannot sustain the fish, even in the most expert of hands, then the fish should be kept where it belongs....in the ocean.

Of course, it is not as cut and dry with fish behavior when it comes to coral destruction, but I think you get the idea.

It is the persistence, however, of some hobbyists with difficult fish that have allowed us now to keep these fish with much more ease, because we know the demands they require to be kept successfully. I remember how impossible it used to be to keep Rock Beauties, Regals, among other fish, and now people are having success with these fish, and I mean success in terms of having them not live for monts, but YEARS in their aquariums.

Interestingly, I seem to recall a similar lively discussion when a certain someone put similar tangs together into a rather large aquarium across the world. I am still watching that one!

I wonder what Mafia is doing to keep his Queen more passive than the negative reports from many on this particular thread.

[jmaneyapanda]

I see your point; there are many experiments done in tanks that are done purely to see if it "can" be done. But, there are still other experiments that I feel are worth undertaking. For instance, a new fish to the hobby, that is not something a lot of people know anything about. It would be good to try and house that fish, learns its husbandry, and see if it can indeed be kept successfully in the hobby. If after research, careful planning, and expert husbandry skills cannot sustain the fish, even in the most expert of hands, then the fish should be kept where it belongs....in the ocean.

Of course, it is not as cut and dry with fish behavior when it comes to coral destruction, but I think you get the idea.

It is the persistence, however, of some hobbyists with difficult fish that have allowed us now to keep these fish with much more ease, because we know the demands they require to be kept successfully. I remember how impossible it used to be to keep Rock Beauties, Regals, among other fish, and now people are having success with these fish, and I mean success in terms of having them not live for monts, but YEARS in their aquariums.

Interestingly, I seem to recall a similar lively discussion when a certain someone put similar tangs together into a rather large aquarium across the world. I am still watching that one!

I wonder what Mafia is doing to keep his Queen more passive than the negative reports from many on this particular thread.

Agreed. There is a very fine, but VERY important line between doing things to advance the understanding and husbandry of our animals, and to just do it to say we did.

As per the reference to the large tank with the tangs, I, too, am watching it, and am a bit disheartened. If not mistaked, the attempts thus far have gone from 8 fish total attempted, down to four currently, and a very short time frame. I'd suggest thats not success. And, in the meanwhile, it is being reported the losses are from "no reason". To me, nothing is gained from this. Just someone doing it to say they can do it. And thus far, four fish have died for it.

[Toddrtrex]

One thing I will add -- all the experimentation with this fish want change the fact that it will get too big for about 99% of tanks out there -- IMO that is the biggest issue with the choice -- who cares if it will eat SPS or not, when it most likely won't fit in the OP's tank.

[virginiabreeze6]

Be prepared to feed SPS to the Queen, if you know that going in, it's a great addition. You may get lucky (But i doubt it). It's more of an economics questions, regarding the coral investment to the appeal of a beautiful fish addition.


In my mind, worth the investment.......

[jd474]

Sorry, but queens are large and destructive, as far as angels go. Besides, I'd pick something that gets less HUGE! :)

+1. I've seen them in huge tanks (thousands of gallons) cause a lot of damage.

[NexDog]

We have a lot of preconceptions that were formed many years ago when this hobby was in its infancy. Back then a 180g tank was INSANE, food was poor, available coral was restricted. But now we have larger tanks, amazing food for our fish, and a huge abundance of corals. This is why we are seeing new successes with fish that were deemed the epitome of NO for reef tanks - Oxymonacanthus longirostris (Orange Spotted FileFish).

I remember Copps said once that there is no angel he wouldn't put in a reef. I don't think he keeps a Queen though, but I don't think it's reputation for eating coral is stopping him (maybe size and aggression).

[copps]

That's right... there is no angel I wouldn't put in my SPS reef... I've kept all seven genera with sps and currently have about 40 angelfish... I keep the queens closest relative in my sps reef now... Holacanthus bermudensis... for those of you that remember that little all xanthic yellow and white blue angel I got that has now converted completely back...

There are so many dynamics to keeping angels in reef tanks... I do an entire one hour talk on it... but if I could give one sentence of advice to successfully keep any angel in an sps tank... it is "Keep your corals healthy!"

Copps

[NexDog]

Ahhhh, cue 50 threads about people trying Queens in reefs. :D

[gofor100]

gofor, my previous post is on target.

"The more I research the more I think I am going to stay away.lol. I dont really have much LPS but worried about the SPS in the tank and even the aggresive issues I might face"

Not sure how this is "on target" since the OP stated himself that he doesn't really have much LPS and but rather keeps mainly SPS, and your statement was that Queen Angels are "LPS destroyers"... but regardless...

I do agree with those that are saying that "experimenting because they can, and not trying to serve any particular purpose without first doing extensive research" is ridiculous. I don't think anyone on this forum would condone blindly putting a fish in a tank without first doing research and feeling comfortable with the results of that research (unless your a newb that gets bamboozled by a LFS employee). So to base your argument on that rationale is assuming that I am condoning this negligence... which I'm not.

I think with ANY fish, if after extensive research has been done, one finds that their tank is a suitable habitat, then why not try it (as long as you are willing to lose some/all of your corals in the process). That being said, I haven't done extensive research on the Queen Angel, in particular, but would assume that tank size would be one of the first considerations a person would take into account before determining whether they will add it (and any other fish) to a tank. Once that has been taken into account, the other inhabitants would then be the next "compatability box" to check off the list, probably making sure that the Queen Angel is the last to be added due to its bad reputation of being a bully. After all of that is reviewed, its diet and aquascape preferences should be considered to make sure it can be provided. If all of these environmental factors are taken into account, then I don't see a reason why someone who is willing to risk a few corals (or has a holding tank in case corals do get nipped) can't at least try a fish (whether it is a queen angel or some other fish). If you can't provide this, then don't keep the fish... bottomline.

I mean this is the ABC's of fishkeeping, so I don't think that I'm saying anything profound here... but I think that everyone is getting all "bent out of shape" for nothing because I think we all agree that this should be the process, its just that some people have already come to the conclusion (from personal experience???) that this fish will not work in an SPS dominated tank (which, let me remind you was the original question). If it is from personal experience, then why don't you tell us the environmental factors (i.e., the tank size, the corals it ate, what age the fish was approximately when placed into the tank, what age approximately the fish was when it started eating the coral/wreaking havoc, its diet, how frequently you fed it, etc.). That way, the OP could use this information to determine for him/herself whether it is a "safe enough gamble" to put this fish in his/her tank.

[rachenbrazil]

Hey coops , pics of black H bermudensis please !

[copps]

It converted completely BACK... not black... :rollface:

[gofor100]

It converted completely BACK... not black... :rollface:

Hahaha... I thought it said black the first time I read it too! :spin2:

[rekn]

gofor, 5th post down.


"The more I research the more I think I am going to stay away.lol. I dont really have much LPS but worried about the SPS in the tank and even the aggresive issues I might face"

[rekn]

the tank size-125 6' long

the corals it ate-lps and a green stag

what age the fish was approximately when placed into the tank-it was rather young, maybe 3" max and chomped corals almost immediately

its diet, how frequently you fed it-formula 1 and 2 and 3x a day


just wanted to add that mine wasnt a slow grower in the slightest, its been awhile but i want to say it hit 6 to 7" its first year and was mean as hell from day 1. i ended up selling it to a friend at 10" and her cheak spines were nearly 1" long ( shes taged me a few times)

[gofor100]

gofor, 5th post down.


"The more I research the more I think I am going to stay away.lol. I dont really have much LPS but worried about the SPS in the tank and even the aggresive issues I might face"

I was focusing more on the "LPS destruction" part of the statement and pointing out that the queen angel's tendencies to destroy LPS shouldn't have any impact on keeping SPS, but I won't dispute any aggressive issues since I've never kept a queen angel personally.

But I figured the crux of the question originally posed was whether one could keep the queen angel in an SPS tank, and thought that was the assumption everyone was going off of. If aggression is the main issue, and not the probability of eating SPS corals, then I must have missed the whole point of this thread... :spin2:

[gofor100]

the tank size-125 6' long

the corals it ate-lps and a green stag

what age the fish was approximately when placed into the tank-it was rather young, maybe 3" max and chomped corals almost immediately

its diet, how frequently you fed it-formula 1 and 2 and 3x a day


just wanted to add that mine wasnt a slow grower in the slightest, its been awhile but i want to say it hit 6 to 7" its first year and was mean as hell from day 1. i ended up selling it to a friend at 10" and her cheak spines were nearly 1" long ( shes taged me a few times)

Sounds like a nice looking specimen... any pics?

[rekn]

no, that was years ago.


and i pointed out lps just in case he wanted to add them in the future, ive seen "dedicated sps" totm with lps in them.

i guess im trying to point out that coral munching isnt the only consideration-size of the animal and aggression play huge factors with this species as well. you buy a ferari and insurance costs arent your only concerns.

[gofor100]

no, that was years ago.


and i pointed out lps just in case he wanted to add them in the future, ive seen "dedicated sps" totm with lps in them.

i guess im trying to point out that coral munching isnt the only consideration-size of the animal and aggression play huge factors with this species as well. you buy a ferari and insurance costs arent your only concerns.

Got it... well now that we're on the same page... :beer:

[NexDog]

rekn - by LPS do you mean brains etc? Did your Queen eat Euphyllia - Hammers, Frogspawn etc?

[SDguy]

One thing I will add -- all the experimentation with this fish want change the fact that it will get too big for about 99% of tanks out there -- IMO that is the biggest issue with the choice -- who cares if it will eat SPS or not, when it most likely won't fit in the OP's tank.

That's really more my concern here. My example was with a med sized angel. Tell me what size tank an adult queen would need to be able to swim around freely and not break your SPS into pieces?

I think it's pretty clear to anyone familiar with SPS and the mouth structure of LARGE angels that eventually, at adult sizes, "eating" the SPS probably isn't an issue...

[chrisqueenz]

Well guys just an update, I ended up getting a Queen Angel and placed it in my 180G 8ft. Instead of my 260G Reef tank. It was truly a beauty but had to choose between my very animated California Ray or the Queen. Tough choice but I was able to re home the Queen to a 300G FO lightly stocked tank. I decided not to go with the Queen in my 260G Reef only because I wasn't prepared to rip apart the tank if it became to agressive with it's tank mates. I sure wish I could keep one, but even in my 180 8ft FO, it seemed like it would eventually need more room.

Here is a pic of him
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y140/chrisqueenz/FishtankMaxima232.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y140/chrisqueenz/FishtankMaxima221.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y140/chrisqueenz/FishtankMaxima228.jpg

I actually decided to go with an Asfur Angel in my 260G reef, another pretty large angel (Sorry for the bad pics)
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y140/chrisqueenz/FishtankMaxima132.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y140/chrisqueenz/FishtankMaxima131.jpg

[gasman059]

That's right... there is no angel I wouldn't put in my SPS reef... I've kept all seven genera with sps and currently have about 40 angelfish... I keep the queens closest relative in my sps reef now... Holacanthus bermudensis... for those of you that remember that little all xanthic yellow and white blue angel I got that has now converted completely back...

There are so many dynamics to keeping angels in reef tanks... I do an entire one hour talk on it... but if I could give one sentence of advice to successfully keep any angel in an sps tank... it is "Keep your corals healthy!"

Copps

AMEN- healthy corals provide absolutely no reason for destruction. IME any angel in a primarily sps tank will do fine as long as the tank and corals are healthy and thriving.
IME any coral that was picked by an angel was downhill anyways.

As far as size I agree with the above posters 100%

Here's an adult in a 375;)
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n320/gasman059/010copy.jpg[/IMG]
And a smaller "Townsend Angel"- in a 200- amongst others in my display. I currently have just a small pair of regals-- but sooner or later those beauties are going staright back in there.( after I get some of chalice fix done)

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n320/gasman059/040-1.jpg[/IMG]
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n320/gasman059/006-4.jpg[/IMG]

They lived in here and for size restrictions where moved to different locations.
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n320/gasman059/oct09tank0092copy.jpg[/IMG]

[chrisqueenz]

That is an awesome display with that angel! I would have taken the plunge but removing him from the 260G was going to be difficult because of acces issues. How long has the Queen been in that tank?

[rekn]

rekn - by LPS do you mean brains etc? Did your Queen eat Euphyllia - Hammers, Frogspawn etc?

anything fleshy but yeah brains,euphyllia etc.

[copps]

I forgot to add that I have my blue angel also with tridacnids, ricordea, and euphyllia (frogspawn) with no issues...

Copps

[NexDog]

Copps, you heathen. I demand you be burned at the stake. :D

[copps]

Come on this is the reef fishes forum... take that garbage to the LPS forum if you want that support :fun2:

[rekn]

I forgot to add that I have my blue angel also with tridacnids, ricordea, and euphyllia (frogspawn) with no issues...

Copps

whats the ... for?


im not saying it cant be done, im not saying it shouldnt be done-do w/e you want

[copps]

rekn, I put ... in just about every post I do... just my writing style... I meant nothing by it. Just a friendly post... :)

[gofor100]

+1 on the "..." writing style... :)

Hey copps, so what do you feed and how frequently do you feed it (sorry if you said this in a previous post)?

[chrisqueenz]

It is possible to have a Queen Angel in a SPS tank, my problem was the actual tankmates. If my tank was just filled with my corals I wouldn't think twice

[Gary Majchrzak]

+1 on the "..." writing style... :)

Hey copps, so what do you feed and how frequently do you feed it (sorry if you said this in a previous post)?
I'm interested in your reply to this as well, John... :)

[Rogger Castells]

AMEN- healthy corals provide absolutely no reason for destruction. IME any angel in a primarily sps tank will do fine as long as the tank and corals are healthy and thriving.
IME any coral that was picked by an angel was downhill anyways.

As far as size I agree with the above posters 100%

Here's an adult in a 375;)
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n320/gasman059/010copy.jpg[/IMG]


This is another picture of the angel above, it was on my tank for approx 3 years and never touched anything that was healthy, neither than the Butterflies.
One thing I must mentioned is that I don't think that queens are suitable fish for small tanks as they grow rather quick, mine was almost 12" long.
Unfortunately I lost all these fishes in that picture when I had an accident in 2008 were one of the glass panes came off letting almost 500gals of water, fishes, corals, rocks and sand on my house floor!
I have since rebuild and I am looking for a small queen again, without a doubt a great fish to have.

http://gallery.me.com/rcastells/100601/IMG_3189-1/web.jpg

[oceangor]

I keep a very large French angel in my 400 gallon mixed reef. I have a set feeding sched. Special feeder he knows and every once in a while he may sample a bite on a zoo or some anthilia VERY rarley) but never touched any SPS or 95% of any of my softies lps or otherwise. I had a an adult queen with no issues until it got some gill flukes and couldnt be caught out in time. The taboo is over rated I think. If you have a large enough display with a variety of corals and space. Good feeding multiple times and train them to eat from a feeder they learn just fine.

[NexDog]

Beautiful fish. I'm definitely going to try one after I have a Regal Angel established and then I should be done stocking wise (on large fish).

What is that yellow and blue butterfly in the first picture? Chaetodon Fasciatus?

[auem]

Beautiful fish. I'm definitely going to try one after I have a Regal Angel established and then I should be done stocking wise (on large fish).

What is that yellow and blue butterfly in the first picture? Chaetodon Fasciatus?

semilarvatus...from red sea..

[copps]

Actually I think he means the butterfly in the left of the photo, which indeed is Chaetodon fasciatus... the Red Sea raccoon butterfly...

I give two heavy feedings a day to my displays... sometimes three on the weekends if I'm home... I feed my QT tanks more frequently depending on what I have in each one... I feed a mix of frozen foods which includes a slurry of many different seafoods, in addition to a gel bound food for some of my larger specimens... much more important is keeping your corals healthy rather than what you're feeding though...

[NexDog]

Hmmm, interesting. I'd love to see a list of Butterflies thatare possible in a reef rather than a blanket "not reef-safe". Does Chaetodon Fasciatus eat coral?

[cerobbins]

Science is all about experimentation. We experiment with animals all the time; this is nothing new. The idea that we may kill one or two fish (or more) in the process of learning about the fish and its care is just a natural part of the scientific learning process, and to say that doing this is a negative thing in our hobby is not entirely accurate, if in fact it is done in the name of science and research.

Sure, you are going to lose fish along the way; however, at some point, the losses decrease due to increased knowledge and information gained from those fish that died in the name of research. And they represent the first steps into a more successful keeping of that same fish later on down the line.



Please do not be so naive.

This is a hobbyist not a scientist.

I do not understand this train of thought... Do you feel the same towards larger animals as well or just fish?

Would you get a dog or a horse just to see if you could keep it alive? I doubt it...

[rekn]

Please do not be so naive.

This is a hobbyist not a scientist.

I do not understand this train of thought... Do you feel the same towards larger animals as well or just fish?

Would you get a dog or a horse just to see if you could keep it alive? I doubt it...

hes from new york

[alton]

http://i903.photobucket.com/albums/ac237/Altonv1/Angelfish/1585-28-2008.jpg

He did very well in this mixed reef. I have since sold the tank and fish but I enjoyed for a year and now someone else is enjoying him. Sorry it is not a Queen but I don't think Queen angels come from the middle of the ocean? Try adding different corals to her tank and see how she does?

[chrisqueenz]

Nice!

[melanotaenia]

Please do not be so naive.

This is a hobbyist not a scientist.

I do not understand this train of thought... Do you feel the same towards larger animals as well or just fish?

Would you get a dog or a horse just to see if you could keep it alive? I doubt it...

If you are speaking of using larger animals for experimentation in trials to determine safety of drugs, then yes.

I do not support housing a dog in a 400 square foot Manhattan apartment however; even I am not that cruel :rollface:

And, to add, this discussion is not about keeping the fish alive, but rather, keeping the fish in a tank with corals that many say would be impossible to do. However, there are a few on here who have had success. Does that mean everyone should throw Queen Angels in their reef tanks? Of course not. However, if proper knowledge is acquired, and proper research is done, and one is willing to push that envelope in the hopes that the Queen is a docile fish, then I say go for it. If the Angel decimates corals, then you can always remove it. It will not kill the fish to move it out of the tank if there is a problem.

However, we should not make blanket statements about fish and give people information that, while it may be the majority, is not always the rule.


BTW, that is a nice Queen in that picture above, and look at all those healthy...ahem...live corals!!!:thumbsup:

[chrisqueenz]

http://i903.photobucket.com/albums/ac237/Altonv1/Angelfish/1585-28-2008.jpg

He did very well in this mixed reef. I have since sold the tank and fish but I enjoyed for a year and now someone else is enjoying him. Sorry it is not a Queen but I don't think Queen angels come from the middle of the ocean? Try adding different corals to her tank and see how she does?



Is that Xenia covering your tank? Looks good!

[chrisqueenz]

Revisited this thread and wondering if there is more experience out there to be shared?

[SDguy]

Revisited this thread and wondering if there is more experience out there to be shared?

Or just updates... we've all had fish with "no issues" for a period of time :)

[Gary Majchrzak]

Well, Chris... you already know "Junior" is doing just fine. But he's an imp- not a Queen.

I can't imagine why there would be any change in copps situation but it would be interesting to hear what he has to say.

[SDguy]

I can't imagine why there would be any change in copps situation but it would be interesting to hear what he has to say.

I wasn't thinking of John... a local reefer... praised the glory of a Queen angel in a reef.... a while later, couldn't sell it fast enough.

So, I was wondering if this is typical or atypical.

[Gary Majchrzak]

I wasn't thinking of John... a local reefer... praised the glory of a Queen angel in a reef.... a while later, couldn't sell it fast enough.

So, I was wondering if this is typical or atypical.how long did that fellow have his Queen?

What kind of reefkeeping experience did he have... was he a seasoned vet or a noob?

[SDguy]

Gary, I've discussed this before. Many fish, including angels, are great in reefs... until something goes wrong. Things go wrong for reefers... you can't change that. And when it does, the compatibility structure changes.

Also, there is a whole lot of discussion about what makes a "reef".... many different people keep many different corals.

[Gary Majchrzak]

Gary, I've discussed this before. Many fish, including angels, are great in reefs... until something goes wrong. Things go wrong for reefers... you can't change that. And when it does, the compatibility structure changes.

Also, there is a whole lot of discussion about what make a "reef".... many different people keep many different corals.we've both discussed all of those topics to death but I had some questions about the particular fellow you mentioned.

How large was his aquarium? Did he purchase his Queen as a juvi or sub adult?

Not looking to critique anybody. Just wanna hear of experiences.

[SDguy]

First, let me be clear... I am not anti-angel in a reef. I am anti-any fish in a reef that will munch on your corals the minute something goes wrong, in a reef.

Things go wrong... I am in the midst on a tank failure now, with no clue why.

If you think tank size (within reason) and age of the fish makes a difference, I will state that you are wrong. IMO it's all about what the fish does with unhealthy corals... it happens.

It's ALL about the health of the coral.

[Gary Majchrzak]

Holocanthus ciliaris gets HUGE. Much bigger than my imperator. Much bolder disposition, too. These guys are HOGS. A Queen is likely to eat zoanthids like so much popcorn IME.

I'm unaware (but sorry) about what is happening with your aquarium over there. Things can go wrong with anything to anybody at anytime.

I don't want to use this thread for my personal view point on Angelfish in a reef aquarium but for those wondering I do agree Angelfish will pick on unhealthy corals. This can be a good thing.

Trying to push forward with more useful information.......

[SDguy]

Holocanthus ciliaris gets HUGE.


I do agree Angelfish will pick on unhealthy corals.


This can be a good thing.




Yup.

Yup.

Nope... if my reef is having a bad day/week/month, I'd like to fix the problem before my fish eat it.

[jjk_reef00]

I had an 8" queen in a 300 sparse reef about 2 years ago. When I put him in I was getting out of coral and wanted to move to FOWLR anyway. I was hopping I would be able to keep a few easy corals but I was wrong. He ate absolutely every soft coral within a month. Zoas were completely gone within 3 days. Polys, kenya tree, and xenia were gradually picked at until they all died or were eaten. I got rid of my chalice and any other soft coral I didn't want to see him eat. I did notice a few broken tips on a green slimer I had in there but nothing really serious. If it is only SPS you might get away with it if you are willing to accept that your queen may take a liking to certain colonies, or break a few branches every once in a while. A thriving queen angel is large, active, eats a ton, and likes to pick at just about anything in the tank. If your tank is smaller than 8' x 30" wide I would pick a smaller fish.