FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Hi everyone, long time no see!
Here's a silly idea that I'd like to do in the future (maybe 5-10 years), but want to start planning.
We're looking to build our own house, and I wanted to integrate an indoor swimming pool with a difference. It will be a giant marine tank!
I wanted to get people's feedback on this crazy idea, what would you do? What would you change? Anything wrong?
Thanks,
Tom

Size/structure
Looking at a size around: 20ft long, 15ft wide and an average of about 4ft deep (probably 2ft at the shallow end to maybe 7-8ft at the deep). That's a volume of around 34,000 litres, 9,000 US Gal or 7500 UK Gal.
The pool will probably be made as most normal pools with concrete/blocks and tiled inside, but with a fish safe grouting.
The room will be sealed off from the rest of the house with a sort of "airlock" viewing room so that very little humidity will be lost. There will be a shower room off this little observation airlock room, which of course will be mandatory if you want to swim in the pool (no soap or anything of course). The pool is so large that the volume of water should dilute anything left on people.

Filtration
I would have one or two giant floor to ceiling skimmers in a side room, with two LARGE pumps (the sort measured in horse power, like the big AquaMedic pumps).
I'm not sure I'd actually need any biological filtration seeing as the floor of the pool will be covered in several inches of sand. I may however include a large deep sand bed filter.
There would also be something like a 5'x2'x2' refugium that is lit 24x7 full of algae to soak up nitrate/phosphates
I'd probably include two large UV filters on the end of the skimmers.

Seascaping
I would include a large amount of liverock (at least 100kg (220lb)), built up on a bed of some other rocks, it would probably be mainly in the shallow end where there is going to be more lighting
What I'm not sure will work is how do we keep the sand at the shallow end and not sliding down into the deep end?

Lighting
Natural light: first of all, two walls running along the side of the pool will be nearly entirely windows, at least 10 in total)
metal Halides: There will most likely be 4 250w (or maybe higher) MH's suspended over the shallow end where the liverock will be (and any corals), then lots of suspended strip lights (probably a bunch of T5s with reflectors) for the deeper end, I want to put a few banded bamboo sharks in there, so they don't like too bright lighting.

Will this be enough? Will I need some 500W MH's instead? I'm not looking to have many (if any) hard corals, if I do, they'll be near the surface under the MH's.

Stocking
Not thought too much about this, however I'd like to try and hatch maybe 4 banded bamboo eggs, seeing as the odds are not all will survive. They shouldn't get too big for the pool and hopefully should be passive enough to swim with :-)

• small shoal of Yellow tangs

• a few Regal tangs

• a few Banner fish

• a pair of copper banded butterfly fish

• a small colony of percula clowns with anemonies

• quite a few sand sifting gobies

• a fairly large group of blue/green chromis - love 'em!

• a shoal of wreck fish

.... stupid one - how safe would a puffer be to swim with? We still have our 5 year old nile puffer (FW) who is pretty big now, who could easily bite your finger off, and would if he thought it was food, but keeps well away when cleaning the tank. I guess it depends on the individual, how save would something like a dogface or spiny puffer be to swim with, and would they be dangerous for the sharks? (the eggs would be hatched inside a protective highly vented plastic box in the pool)

Inverts:
Well I'm not sure about the inverts, so suggestions please.
Is there any reason why a whole shoal at a time can't be added to a tank of this size? I'd run the whole system, without liverock for a week or two, then 6 weeks with liverock, then introduce the fish.

Quarantine
There will be a 6x2x2 holding quarantine tank just for fish (will likely be treated with copper), which will be held for at least 6-8 weeks before adding to the pool.
Inverts will be quarantined in a slightly smaller tank for a similar period (without copper!)

Lastly
Well the budget won't be unlimited, but it will be fairly large as we have a long time to save up (and probably a large part of a mortgage too!).
Please comment! :-)

P.S.
We've sold the fish/reptile shop now! But shouldn't have problems getting all the liverock, equipment and fish/inverts at trade prices.

I'm not really thrilled with the idea of people swimming in it. People will really stress the animals, not to mention put more in the water to filter out with body oils etc. A simple water shower wouldn't be enough I don't think, and I don't know what would be.

That's the other thing. You should decide between a reef and a fish tank. If you want sharks, a reef tank is a bad idea, as they will produce a lot of waste. Also, you haven't mentioned nearly enough rock for it to be a reef tank, and not nearly enough bio filtration (LR or bioballs etc) for it to be a fish tank. The sand will help filter, sure, but it wouldn't be nearly enough without more rock or something.

Another thing to consider is flow. You will need LOTS! I didn't see any mention of this. External pumps with closed loops are probably best. You're looking at many thousands of gph for a reef tank.

I'd personally have a much larger, or multiple refugiums of the size you've mentioned. The volume you've described might be 1% of the total water volume. I don't think that will make any difference at all. I'd probably shoot for at least 25% in sumps, refugiums, etc.

Personally, I think something of this magnitude involves more than we know. I'd go talk to someone whose put together a tank like this. Call a local aquarium or something. My opinion doesn't really mean much, cause I haven't made a tank that's even as big as the refugium you've talked about using .

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

Hi Matt, thanks for the reply,
I think that the issue of people swimming in it shouldn't be too much of a problem as it will be kept down to one or two people at a time and only every few days for short periods.
I've seen quite a few aquariums where members of staff go in to do maintenance (usually in wet suits), however most of them are somewhat larger.
We would of course provide enough hiding spaces/caves etc for fish and sharks so that they can feel secure and not get stressed.

Remember, that these sharks don't get big at all, and we're talking about a huge volume of water and sand, so their waste should be fairly insignificant. I do think we may need to vastly increase the amount of rockwork, but it doesn't have to be liverock to help with filtration.

I was hoping to get the majority of the flow from the two several horse power rated pumps that feed the skimers, obviously it wouldn't be difficult to add some more around the area with the reef, as this is likely to be confined to one corner.

This was the skimmer we were looking at:
http://www.aqua-medic.com/turboflotor_20000.shtml
Seeing as the tank will be very understocked for the volume of water, I would think one of these should do easily.

I may split the output to several outputs from each pump then use... can't remember the name of it, the non-powered device that changes the flow between several outlets... one of those

And you're probably right, a refugium of any normal sized tank probably won't make a dent.

I think the general rules still apply, it's just a vastly larger scale. Nothing here is set in concrete (apart from the foundations, haha!), so I'm sure this idea will develop and change as the many years go by before I could even afford to do it.
Everyone's opinion and ideas are welcome it'll all help.
And yes, that's a good idea, we'll talk to the London Aquarium, as we know one of the guys, I believe he's the curator, up there who helped us out with rotifers/brine shrimp when we had the shop and the millions of baby seahorses hatched very unexpectedly (1 day after ariving!)

People scuba dive all the time in public aquaria, I don't see the problem with people with fish. Then again the tanks that they swim in are absolutely enormous, even moreso than a 9000 gallon aquarium.

To keep the sand at the shallow end you will basically need to build a wall. Keep in mind that water and fish movement can kick sand over the wall if it isn't high enough.

Be prepared to cover those windows, the sunlight could really mess with things. Take into consideration the angle of the sun and how you will situate the windows in the room. That said, there is a reason most public aquariums do not use sunlight, and there is also a reason that they do not do reefs in huge tanks.

I'm not sure what kind of design you're getting at here. Is one portion of it a reef tank and the rest of it open water? Is it just one huge reef tank? Think you can upload a drawing? It's hard to picture based on your description.

You've got to think how you're going to deal with nitrates going up if your biological filtration isn't great enough. Massive water changes is probably not an option for you, unless you can get saltwater easily. I don't see a failsafe for some common possible disasters, worsened by the magnitude of this project. You say "school" and "shoal", but that doesn't say if you're doing 5 or 25 tangs, which makes a difference, of course.

Not sure why you would choose wreck fish. I think porkfish would be way more attractive, but to each his own...

IMO, if you want sharks, you should devote the tank to them, not try to do a reef. To best care for these different animals it's more convenient to have them apart. To do a super tank that combines all these animals, though they might be found this way in the wild, seems to me like it would be difficult. A reef can easily be done in a much smaller aquarium. In a large aquarium, all the small corals and their details get blurred together into a mess of textures. My eyes hurt when I looked at Mr. 4000's tank. It might not be worth it to do a reef instead of an FOWLR, so that you can focus on keeping fish.

Because of that, I think a tank of this scale is "wasted" on a reef. On a tank that large that you can just stand back and look at, you don't want to be leaning in real close to try to see minute details of a coral polyp budding. Well, us crazy aquarists might but not the average person. I think having a community of large fish would fit the scale of the tank more than all the small fish like clowns and chromis, which will not need to utilize all that volume anyway.

I agree with matt that this project is on the scale that it might be best to go take a tour of a public aquarium and ask tons of questions. Perhaps contact an engineer or technician at the aquarium that might be knowledgeable in what might work.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

I thought a small wall may be the only way to keep the sand there.

The windows were only there to add extra light, if they're going to cause a problem, it will be significantly cheaper not to have them, which means more budget for the tank/filtration!
We're designing the house and the pool/tank to go together, so changing things radically at this stage is easy. It's not even certain we're ever goign to do it, but it's just a wild dream that I'd love to do one day.

The idea was that it was really going to be a FOWLR and maybe a few soft corals. The liverock would be mainly aquascaped in one corner where the waterflow would be fairly high with extra lighting

As for the shoals/schools, I was thinking more 4-5 for the larger fish (tangs) and 10-15 of the smaller (chromis), so really very few fish and very little waste for the volume.

I really wasn't considering to fill the whole pool as a reef, it would cost a fortune, it's definately more of a fish tank, but the odd hardy soft coral/invert here and there shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Again, we'll see if we can get the tour of London Aquarium again from the curator, who a few years back let us see their VAST filtration systems and breeding facilities - it was amazing. We're talking small building sized skimmer tanks!

I guess the real issue is keeping down nitrates so that I won't have to do many $400 worth of salt-water changes.
I'm only looking at having something like 20 medium-large fish, 2-4 very small sharks and 20-30 smaller fish in a 34,000 litres (9,000 us gal). Having setup my own LFS several years ago, it's pretty obvious this is well below average stocking levels.
I would ideally like to have a nearly completely self contained eco-system. Water changes would not be a fun thing to do, and quite costly, but likewise, filling the whole pool with liverock would be too.
Would it make sense to use a lot of non-live, porous rock, mixed in with liverock, left to mature for a few months first. That should help with denitrification, and also a large amount of algae of some sort (e.g. Caulerpa, but maybe something more friendly, and preferably edible by the tangs), to use as a sort of in-tank refugium.
Alternatively, it shouldn't be too difficult to build a dentrifying filter from a 6x2x2 tank, with a very slow feed pump connected to a computer control, and mixing the output water with the skimmer output to re-oxygenate it.

Lastly, I know that I'll definitely have to at least add new water (both fresh and salted) due to evaporation and the amount that comes off the skimmer. I am hoping that with low enough stocking levels, and enough dentrification from specially made filters, live/dead rock and harvesting of algae, that the system should be mostly self-contained.

How realistic do you think I'm being here? Remembering that this is a pretty understocked "tank" with a very large volume of water.

Well I've had a chat with the guy from the London Aquarium, who was amazingly helpful as usual (must put a plug in for the Aquarium, the guys there are so nice, and it's a great day out!).

In theory he doesn't see any real problems with the whole idea, he recommended using skimming as the primary filtration, and that we should get two larger skimmers instead of one, but not to over-skim too much.
Also that we should ditch the UV as it just isn't really that useful (they used to use UV in the aquarium, but no longer do), and use computer regulated ozone that is fed into the skimmers. Then from the skimmers there should be two degaussing trickle towers about the same size as the skimmers full with bioballs, then the output back into the pool, (at which point the probes for controlling the ozone are). Also thinks that the deep sand bed filter isn't going to be needed with the two towers and skimmers, and that it would waste a lot of water when back-washing them (he was quoting 3,000 liters+).

He thinks 1 times flow per hour for the skimmers/filters is fine, and that there should be a few smaller circulation pumps to give another 2-3 times turnover per hour. Also that we should get axle-flow pumps, not impellers as they are more efficient and powerful.
In terms of water changes, he suggested using an industrial de-nitrification filter from someone like Aquacare in Germany, who produce very large sulfur based systems, they're not cheap (at around $16,000) though, so I may still look into building one.

Basically, with de-nitrification filters, and decent skimmers and controlled ozone, there should be very little reason to almost ever do a water change (his words - maybe once a year a small change). As the reason for water changes are to remove harmful toxins, that the skimmer, ozone and de-nit filters are already doing, and that the animals' growth shouldn't take out too many nutrients from that volume of water. Obviously, I would keep an eye on water quality, but not much should need to be done.

And lastly, he said that as long as you shower before going into the tank, any skin oils etc, shouldn't affect the tank/fish at all, and that swimming (calmly) in the tank is not stressful for the fish/sharks at all, he says they get used to it very quickly and will come up to you to be hand fed, and that several cat-sharks will be very comfortable in a pool this size.

Looks like I have a decent plan coming along now! :-)

Hi

I know very little about SW setups so I can't help with specifics - just thought that I would provide a link to one of the local tourist attractions - they run 'complete ecosystems' with apparently no filtration, feeding or water changes.

Indo Pacific Marine

Their website does not appear to have a lot of specific information about how they are set up, but it may be an interesting exercise to contact them while you are doing your research.

Good luck, I'd love to see how this all turns out.

G_T

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.

Would it make sense to use a lot of non-live, porous rock, mixed in with liverock, left to mature for a few months first. That should help with denitrification, and also a large amount of algae of some sort (e.g. Caulerpa, but maybe something more friendly, and preferably edible by the tangs), to use as a sort of in-tank refugium.

This would be a great idea were it not for the tangs. They will really demolish any edible algae in a confined area. If you use cheatomorpha instead, it probably won't be touched by the tangs. At least I've never seen a tang take a liking to it. You can just use a mix of algaes and see what survives the tangs, that would be my route I guess. These will need lights to grow obviously, so that would add to the cost if we've decided to go FO now.

And I absolutely agree with using a lot of non-live rock at first and let it be seeded by the live stuff, though you should still use a good portion of live rock to do the seeding. I think you can end up making rock for $.50 per pound. I think people use portland I cement, aragonite or similar sand and some use pure rock salt for porousness. The only downside is the curing time. I think it's something like 6 weeks in freshwater.

As for the diving, I'm sure that there's a difference between the caretakers doing the diving and your friends coming over and diving. Just make sure they respect the system as much as you do and it should be fine. Accidents happen and whatnot, but if you aren't concerned neither am I.


Did the caretaker say why he didn't employ natural methods of nitrate reduction? Large refugiums and deep sand beds for example?

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

This would be a great idea were it not for the tangs. They will really demolish any edible algae in a confined area. If you use cheatomorpha instead, it probably won't be touched by the tangs. At least I've never seen a tang take a liking to it. You can just use a mix of algaes and see what survives the tangs, that would be my route I guess. These will need lights to grow obviously, so that would add to the cost if we've decided to go FO now.

Yes, duh, hadn't thought of that, it's a bit useless if the nitrates and phosphates get sucked up by the algae to then be eaten and released back into the water column.

And I absolutely agree with using a lot of non-live rock at first and let it be seeded by the live stuff, though you should still use a good portion of live rock to do the seeding. I think you can end up making rock for $.50 per pound. I think people use portland I cement, aragonite or similar sand and some use pure rock salt for porousness. The only downside is the curing time. I think it's something like 6 weeks in freshwater.

I have all the time in the world to get prepared for it, so curing times won't matter I would be very interested to see some more information on making the rock like this, do you know of any sites with any more info? Thanks.

As for the diving, I'm sure that there's a difference between the caretakers doing the diving and your friends coming over and diving. Just make sure they respect the system as much as you do and it should be fine. Accidents happen and whatnot, but if you aren't concerned neither am I.

I have complete respect for the animals and want to keep any stress to an absolute minimum, so it wouldn't be too often, and for short amounts of time, and I would limit it to one or two people at the time max. (and no kids!!!), there would be very strict rules.

Did the caretaker say why he didn't employ natural methods of nitrate reduction? Large refugiums and deep sand beds for example?

I think the problem was that their systems are much more highly stocked and they have full sized nurse sharks for instance, so they actually do massive water changes, and have small house sized skimmers, while they do have colossal amounts of liverock and some tanks that are 3-4 stories high, they are probably just too highly stocked to make it financially viable. Saying that, they do by Instant Ocean by the tonne. Which can't be cheap!

Thanks again guys for the feedback

matty, I think DSBs are relatively new, and AFAIK their efficacy on large public aquarium-scale environments has yet to be proven. Also, the "natural"-ness of DSBs are actually debateable. I've never gone diving, but apparently you do not see a DSB if you go diving on a clean, natural reef. Apparently, you can dig around the sand and you won't come up with all those little snails, worms and other animals, and deeper sand does not grow dark like it does in lower levels of the DSB. Last In this discussion, it was thought that DSBs do have a natural presence, however, in high nutrient zones and possible areas that are more polluted; these are habitats where soft corals inhabit more readily rather than the stony coral reefs you normally see in pictures.

In any case, many public aquariums do not use DSBs, so I think this tank can be done successfully without one. The professional opinion is very good since anything the rest of us say is just an extrapolation of what we already know from smaller aquariums.

BTW, http://www.GARF.org will be your new best friend. Tons of great DIY info there, including making your own rock.

Here's an informative article about a huge reef at the Georgia Aquarium, just for the heck of it. They in fact do use natural sunlight, but during the winter they have a ton of lighting...
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-03/feature/index.php

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

matty, I think DSBs are relatively new, and AFAIK their efficacy on large public aquarium-scale environments has yet to be proven. Also, the "natural"-ness of DSBs are actually debateable. I've never gone diving, but apparently you do not see a DSB if you go diving on a clean, natural reef. Apparently, you can dig around the sand and you won't come up with all those little snails, worms and other animals, and deeper sand does not grow dark like it does in lower levels of the DSB.Last In this discussion, it was thought that DSBs do have a natural presence, however, in high nutrient zones and possible areas that are more polluted; these are habitats where soft corals inhabit more readily rather than the stony coral reefs you normally see in pictures.

Where'd you get this info Shini? I can understand not seeing dsbs ON reefs. There's no place for sand on a forereef with all the current. But behind reefs in the lagoonal areas there's plenty of sand with many of the same critters that could be found in a home refugium/dsb. I've seen it myself. They may not be as plentiful due to predation, but you can bet the farm that they are there. Also, it's a good point that this is where you find many of your soft corals and gorgonians. That's fine. We aren't putting acros in our refugiums. It doesn't matter who is found where, because the systems IRL and in an aquarium depend on each other 100% from the mangroves to seagrass beds, to sandy lagoons, to the reef. You'll never find a mangrove near an acropora, but nobody will argue it's usefulness in a an aquarium setup or the connectedness it has in the real world. In our setups we make special use of flow to make sure that our refugium and dsbs are the "high nutrient, polluted" areas of the tank. With high flow in the display and lower flow in the fuge, the detritus more readily settles out into the fuge and is used by that environ rather than what is in the display.

And the color in the deeper parts of the sandbed....this is just where the sand meets the glass and is exposed to the light. You end up with algal growth. In the middle of the bed, it's not darker...it's still the same color.

I agree, do look at garf.org for your diy rocks, but also google it. There's many different intuitive recipes out there.

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

I think the problem was that their systems are much more highly stocked and they have full sized nurse sharks for instance, so they actually do massive water changes, and have small house sized skimmers, while they do have colossal amounts of liverock and some tanks that are 3-4 stories high, they are probably just too highly stocked to make it financially viable. Saying that, they do by Instant Ocean by the tonne. Which can't be cheap!

This does make a lot of sense, and kind of why I figured they wouldn't use natural technologies.

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

Where'd you get this info Shini? I can understand not seeing dsbs ON reefs. There's no place for sand on a forereef with all the current. But behind reefs in the lagoonal areas there's plenty of sand with many of the same critters that could be found in a home refugium/dsb. I've seen it myself. They may not be as plentiful due to predation, but you can bet the farm that they are there. Also, it's a good point that this is where you find many of your soft corals and gorgonians. That's fine. We aren't putting acros in our refugiums. It doesn't matter who is found where, because the systems IRL and in an aquarium depend on each other 100% from the mangroves to seagrass beds, to sandy lagoons, to the reef. You'll never find a mangrove near an acropora, but nobody will argue it's usefulness in a an aquarium setup or the connectedness it has in the real world. In our setups we make special use of flow to make sure that our refugium and dsbs are the "high nutrient, polluted" areas of the tank. With high flow in the display and lower flow in the fuge, the detritus more readily settles out into the fuge and is used by that environ rather than what is in the display.

And the color in the deeper parts of the sandbed....this is just where the sand meets the glass and is exposed to the light. You end up with algal growth. In the middle of the bed, it's not darker...it's still the same color.

It was a short discussion I saw on ReefCentral a few years back, accompanied by a video of some guy in scuba gear digging in sand and showing that it didn't really appear much like a DSB at all. I am not sure of the location he was digging relative to the main reef, but there was blurry rockwork and possible reef behind him. It wasn't anything heavily scientific or anything, so it's possible the logic of it was flawed or it just wasn't even correct. Perhaps I put too much emphasis on the importance of that and related discussions I have seen. Technically I was arguing that the density of inverts would be lower, rather than being totally absent, but that's my fault for not correctly articulating that. Admittedly I have been in and out of researching saltwater, and only just recently back into it.

I don't have a DSB, but I have seen dark anaerobic pockets of sand and gravel in substrate that hasn't been turned over in a while.

I suppose it is a different way of seeing it. We're microscaling nature. A tank set-up can contain all the interconnected parts that are not found together on the scale of a single fish tank. Hmmm.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

I think a DSB is probably out of the question with a system this big just simply because it would need to be HUUUGE to have any sort of impact on the pool.

Lighting
I wanted to discuss lighting, and again wanted to try something a bit out of the ordinary.
Have people tried out, or have heard of anyone using high powered compact flurescent bulbs, e.g. this sort of thing:
http://www.greenhousecatalog.com/images/fluorescent_grow_light.jpg
It's a 200W compact fluorescent bulb (yes 200w!) with daylight spectrum, used in horticulture. Most CF bulbs have the equivilant of 5 times the light produced by a normal bulb (e.g. a 20w is roughly a 100w equivilant), so by these means, that could be the equivilant to a 1000w bulb, and should produce a lot less heat. (13,000 lumens over a 4'x4' area are the actual stats).
What do you guys think of this as a replacement for the MHs? (Given the correct light spectrum).
I'd like to go for a more energy efficient option if possible, and the fact that they produce a lot less heat, will make the room cooler in summer.
I was also thinking of using a few of these to replace several of the T5's too, but have them higher up nearer to the ceiling to cover more of the pool where the liverocks aren't.

First hitch, it's pretty hard to find any 14-20,000k compact fluorescent 100w+ bulbs, however I do have a few sources, so going to try and find some =)
If anyone knows any sources of the above bulbs, (if they exist), let me know, thanks!
Tom.

I think a DSB is probably out of the question with a system this big just simply because it would need to be HUUUGE to have any sort of impact on the pool.

Yeah, sorry for taking your thread off-track a little.

If you want efficiency and lifespan in a bulb, T5HO are currently the leader of that pack. If given good ballasts to operate on, good bulbs, and nice individual reflectors, they can produce 2-3 times as much light per watt compared to compact fluorescents or metal halides. The bulbs also last longer, up to 1.5 yrs. while people suggest replacing the others under a yr. As soon as the kinks are worked out of leds and the price comes down significantly, they may take over. Halides of course still reign in the penetration department, so that might be worth considering in the deeper end of your tank.

Power compacts aren't really efficient or powerful IMO. They are kind of falling by the wayside as there are better options in lighting these days, and I'd suggest you go for one of those instead.

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

This would be a great idea were it not for the tangs. They will really demolish any edible algae in a confined area. If you use cheatomorpha instead, it probably won't be touched by the tangs. At least I've never seen a tang take a liking to it.

We use to feed Chaeto to the tangs at work all the time and they loved it. I also fed it to the Kole and Yellow tang that I had in my 180. Always reminded me of them eating spaghetti the way they would nibble on it and "slurp" it up LOL

That's funny. I wonder why I've not seen tangs eat it?

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients