# How many frogs can i fit?



## mboehne86 (Oct 23, 2008)

I have just finished setting up my paludarium, its a 58 gallon. Odd tank. I am wanting to get some D. Auratus but i am wondering how many will fit comfortably? I do have branches protruding from the back wall and most of the bottom is ground surface except for the front chunk of the tank. I am hoping to fit at least 4. What do ya think?


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Some pictures would help us give you an estimate.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

As I understand it auratus aren't as picky as most other frogs about how much space they have. Usually I believe the rule for auratus goes that you should have at least 5 gallons/frog. Meaning in a 60ish gallon tank you could probably fit about 12. But I wouldn't do that, personally. For a sixty gallon I would put six auratus in there.


----------



## mboehne86 (Oct 23, 2008)

Sorry, i dont have pics at this time. I should soon though!! Im excited! I was kinda hoping i could fit 6ish in there just becuase then maybe ill stand a chance at seeing a couple at a time when i look in there. lol Thanks much guys!


----------



## moothefrog (May 16, 2008)

6 is fine.


----------



## sgvreptiles (Jan 26, 2009)

I have 4 in my 55 gallon. Dont know if Ill ad more or not.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

6 would be just fine


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

SmackoftheGods said:


> As I understand it auratus aren't as picky as most other frogs about how much space they have. Usually I believe the rule for auratus goes that you should have at least 5 gallons/frog. Meaning in a 60ish gallon tank you could probably fit about 12. But I wouldn't do that, personally. For a sixty gallon I would put six auratus in there.


 
For tinc and tinc type frogs (big boys) 1 frog per 10 gallons is the go-by.

in fact more size is always better ...better for breeding and less chance of runting your frogs. There is an argument about stunting growth in frogs but I believe in it.


----------



## Ziggi (Jan 23, 2009)

I think 10Gals per frog is great, even with auratus and leucs where as sometimes stated 5gal per frog is ok, I think if you have the space why not give it to them.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Philsuma said:


> For tinc and tinc type frogs (big boys) 1 frog per 10 gallons is the go-by.
> 
> in fact more size is always better ...better for breeding and less chance of runting your frogs. There is an argument about stunting growth in frogs but I believe in it.


The only problem with using the volume as a basis for recommending density is that as standard aquarium size increases the basic available area/frog decreases.... that said a group of 4-6 auratus should easily be fine in that sized enclosure.


----------



## DizzyD (Sep 19, 2006)

Well said. Ed.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Ed said:


> The only problem with using the volume as a basis for recommending density is that as standard aquarium size increases the basic available area/frog decreases.... .


Granted, I've had 1/2 a bottle of Riesling with dinner, but......huh?


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

perhaps the ratio of floor space (sq ft) to total volume(cubic feet) decreases as more vertical height is added.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

I always thought is was:

The bigger the tank....the more frogs.

Dunno 'bout no algrebraic computations n' such.....


----------



## boogsawaste (Jun 28, 2008)

What Ed is saying is that the 10 gallon per frog rule isn't always the best way to judge. A 10 gallon is the starting point, and moving up to a 20 gallon you don't necessarily double the floor (or usable) space for the frogs. A 10 gallon has 200 square inches of floor space, where as a 20 high has only 288. A 20 long has a little better at 360" but it's still not the 400 double. A standard 55 gallon only has 576" of floor space. So pretty much the larger you go doesn't mean you could go by the standard rule of 10 gallons per frog. 

In order to use all the volume you would have to fill the tank solid and of course that wouldn't work. You can offset this by planting/hardscaping heavily but there's only so much you can do. 

Make sense?

Oh, and 6 auratus will be fine (as long as your water feature isn't huge, picture??).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I'm being lazy so bits of this are from a thread I put together many many moons ago.... 
For the most basic example. 

To make this simple, I am using the assumption that the 5.5 gallon tank is the standard for the 5 gallons that is the commonly used reference. 
Within the 5.5 gallons of space, the space used by the frog (I am going to use a tinct as a standard for the larger dart frogs) is typically very different than the space "alloted". In a typically simple planted set-up the frog will only use the bottom of the tank most of the time so the actual used total space can be calculated by the surface area of the bottom of the tank (8 inches by 12 inches) and say 3 inches of head room for the frogs to hop. A 5.5 gallon tank contains 960 cubic inches so the frogs only really use 30% (288/960 = 0.3) of the available space or about 1.65 gallons. 
What this means is that people have to pay attention to how the tank is portioned out for the frogs. With the set-up described above (5.5 gallon tank) there may be between 4 to 5 inches (substracting for bottom of the tank) of height in the tank that is not typically used by the dart frog..

For a larger enclosure 

In enclosures larger than the 5.5 gallon tank used in the example, the space not primarily used by a frog like a tinct can be much more dramatically different as in many tanks, the height increases faster than the length and width of the tank(although there are often tanks such as 20 longs that are not as problematic. 
For example a ten gallon tank is 20 long x 10 wide x 12 high giving a total of 2400 cubic inches. However if we then calculate the usable volume of the tank using the same criteria used in the 5.5 gallon tank (in the first post) we get 3 inches high x 10 inches wide x 20 inches long we get 600 cubic inches or 25% of the total volume of the tank (and only a 50% increase of the usable space of a 5.5 gallon tank).
If we then go up to a 20 gallon high tank 16.5 high x 12 wide x 24 long we get 4752 total cubic inches with a usable area of 3 x 12 x 24 = 864 cubic inches. In a 20 gallon high tank the amount of usable space drops to a low of 18% of the tank (or a total of 3.6 gallons) yet the 5 gallon/frog rule has us then placing four dart frogs in the tank. In a 20 gallon long (approximate external dimensions of 30x13x12 gets 4680 cubic inches with a usable space of 1080 cubic inches a use rate of 23% or a total of 4.6 gallons). 
When looking at even larger standard enclosures such as 55 gallon aquaria (48 x 12 x 20 = 11520 total cubic inches) with a usable space of 1728 cubic inches or a total of 15% of the tank space or a total of 8.25 gallons. (Or based on the 1frog/5 gallon rule 11 frogs which would each have 157 cubic inches each or a total volume of .68 gallons each)
So these usable space ideas indicates that there is something wrong with this method of determing density of frogs as the actual density of multifrog enclosures exceeds the 5/gallons frog limit commonly recommended by the masses as the size of the tank increases (each frog has 300 cubic inches of space/frog (using the 5 gallon/frog rule) in a ten gallon, and 270 cubic inches in a 20 long as opposed to 157 cubic inches of space in a 55 gallon). (Using ten gallons per frog is slightly better but still suffers the same drawbacks). 

and onto a more complex set up.. keep in mind that these are minimal estimates of usable space 

So even looking at the minimal space available to the frogs in a more 
complex set-up such as those that include drip walls and plants, the ratio of habitable space still decreases as the volume of the tank increases as more and more of the volume of the tank is represented by glass and air volume (but it is this change that creates the changes in the moisture levels, humidity, air flow patterns and light patterns that create different microhabitats allowing the multispecies options). 
If we assume that we lose 2 inches of height due to a false bottom set 
up and include a tree fern fiber drip wall (as this is thicker than a cocos panel) which is about 1 inch deep. As plantings in tanks tend to be an admixture of tall and short plants as well as open spaces to permit viewing, an assumption that the frogs can use 100% of the first 6 inches in height will give a base line estimate of usable space (instead of estimating usable space in a varied planting). The drip wall is kept to a depth of three inches out from the surface of the drip wall and is assumed to be 100% usable by the frogs. 
So for a 20 high tank 24 long x 16.5 high x 12 deep. Deducting for the 
substrate and drip wall changes the numbers to the following 
14.5 inches high x 11 deep x 24 inches long. So we do not calculate out 
the same overlapping volume twice, the three inches from the drip wall are excluded from the bottom area calculations. So then the minimal usable area ends up being (6 inches (height) x 8 deep x 24 long) + (14.4 height x 3 inches deep x 24 inches long)= (1152 ) + (1036.8) = 2188.8 as the conservative minimal estimate for usable space. Yet this is still significantly less than the total volume of the tank (4752 cubic inches so when the total minimal usable estimate is applied you get only 46% of the tank (or 9.2 gallons or 2.3 gallons per frog) as estimated usable space. In a 55 you get (6 inches height x 8 deep x 48 long) + ( 18 height x 3 
inches deep x 48 inches long) = (2304) + (2592) = 4896 cubic inches or 42.3% of the volume of the tank (or 23 gallons total or 2.1 gallon/frog) the general trend of the increasing volume decreasing minimal usable space. So once again the idea that each frog gets a minimum of 5 gallons of space breaks down as the enclosures get larger (This is counter intuitive but true unless the enclosure's floor area increases as the height increases (some breeder tanks are an example of this). (However for territorial/aggressive species it is still a place to start planning.) . 


Does that help. (It was nice to plagerize myself and save time typing). 

Ed


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

boogsawaste said:


> Make sense?


 
Yeah, when you put it that way but the "1 frog per 10 gallons" has always been assumed (at least by me) to be a general, non scientific type of saying....kind of like, use a "pinch" of sugar. Of course, when you break the actual size down it diminishes as you say, but again......I just always thought of it as good, general advice to give new guys....thats all.


----------



## boogsawaste (Jun 28, 2008)

Ed said:


> I'm being lazy so bits of this are from a thread I put together many many moons ago....
> For the most basic example.
> 
> To make this simple, I am using the assumption that the 5.5 gallon tank is the standard for the 5 gallons that is the commonly used reference.
> ...


Way to out due my previous post hahaha.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

No Ed...after the Riesling, it most certainly did not


----------



## boogsawaste (Jun 28, 2008)

Philsuma said:


> Yeah, when you put it that way but the "1 frog per 10 gallons" has always been assumed (at least by me) to be a general, non scientific type of saying....kind of like, use a "pinch" of sugar. Of course, when you break the actual size down it diminishes as you say, but again......I just always thought of it as good, general advice to give new guys....thats all.


I still agree that it is a good starting point, especially for new guys. Just trying to get Ed's point across.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

boogsawaste said:


> Way to out due my previous post hahaha.


I was cutting and pasting that together when you posted. I had meant to follow up but the wife did something and disconnected me from the network by accident.... 

Its a good starting point but too many of the people take it as an absolute standard.. and don't understand that bigger doesn't always mean that the frogs get more room... 

Ed


----------



## boogsawaste (Jun 28, 2008)

Ed said:


> I was cutting and pasting that together when you posted. I had meant to follow up but the wife did something and disconnected me from the network by accident....
> 
> Its a good starting point but too many of the people take it as an absolute standard.. and don't understand that bigger doesn't always mean that the frogs get more room...
> 
> Ed


I was just messing around. I remember that thread you copied and pasted from. Lot of good info in there.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Yes, but just like in a house you don`t have to double the sq footage to accomodate another person. Esp if being a mated pair. To add 2 more males you would need 2 extra rooms as opposed to the 1 room already there for the pair. there is a standard community area assumed. As yuo get into sex ratios and breeding is where you need to accomodate for more space and visual barriers specifically for fighting. An open 75 gallon tank isn`t going to do as well as a heavily planted 30 for 2 pair of azureus. This "rule" is obviously an estimate and there are other, more important factors when considering community groups, whether mixed or the same species. Some individuals won`t get along no matter what you do. Since we are feeding from outside the tank, surface area for producing food doesn`t factor in, not unlike our society.


----------



## frankpayne32 (Mar 17, 2007)

5 or 6 frogs in that size tank would be good for breeding purposes. But you could keep at least ten in there if you aren't concerned about them breeding. In larger groups there is almost always at least one frog that is low on the pecking order and gets skinny over time so keep an eye on that.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

frankpayne32 said:


> 5 or 6 frogs in that size tank would be good for breeding purposes. But you could keep at least ten in there if you aren't concerned about them breeding. In larger groups there is almost always at least one frog that is low on the pecking order and gets skinny over time so keep an eye on that.


If one gets skinny, it means you can`t successfully keep that many together.
10 adult auratus in a 55gal? I wouldn`t go past 4. That doesn`t mean more won`t work but above 4 your getting into possible territorial issues.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> If one gets skinny, it means you can`t successfully keep that many together.
> 10 adult auratus in a 55gal? I wouldn`t go past 4. That doesn`t mean more won`t work but above 4 your getting into possible territorial issues.


This is not a simple issue as territoriality has many components and in reality is a flexible item that depends on a number of things including resources for reproduction. In a number of dendrobatids (such as tinctorius, and auratus) one of the limiting resources (and hence territoriality) for these frogs is access to the males for the females. Because of this, smaller numbers even in bigger enclosures may not reduce territoriality and aggression between the frogs. Additionally, you have to factor in calling sites. If there are insufficient calling sites then you are going to have more aggression, if there are insufficient deposition sites for eggs or tadpoles or access to the males you can get a lot of aggression even in larger enclosures. For higher densities to succeed you need to be able to create a sufficient number of these resources to prevent them from being monopolized by one or more frogs and preventing the others from accessing them. 
Aaron has the right idea with the multiple visual barriers as this gives the frog an escape route of some kind from excessive agression but heavily planted may not be as good as a thick leaf litter as the leaf litter may provide more niches as well as a up and down dimension to allow for escape. 

If one peruses through Poison Frogs (Lotters et al) and gets to the pumilio section, there are pictures in there of surprising population densities (which are reported in other literature elsewhere) of what we know is a very territorial aggressive species. There is research that supports that if sufficient resources are available then the population density (territory size decreases (see JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie)). This does lead to the question, that if we do not see the same sort of plasticity of behavior in the captive collections are we doing something wrong..... 

Some thoughts


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

That and the point at which densities are too high for anyone to worry about "territory". It`s all about being perceptive to your unique situation and constantly watching for changes in the pecking order. As w/ any wildlife habitat is "best" when there are sufficient cover, water(tad sites), and food. Change any of these variables will change the dynamic of the group and possibly make territoriality and issue.
But just because there isn`t aggression doesn`t mean 10 auratus won`t overnitrify a tank in short time making it toxic.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> That and the point at which densities are too high for anyone to worry about "territory". It`s all about being perceptive to your unique situation and constantly watching for changes in the pecking order. As w/ any wildlife habitat is "best" when there are sufficient cover, water(tad sites), and food. Change any of these variables will change the dynamic of the group and possibly make territoriality and issue.
> 
> Exactly
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ed said:


> frogfarm said:
> 
> 
> > That and the point at which densities are too high for anyone to worry about "territory". It`s all about being perceptive to your unique situation and constantly watching for changes in the pecking order. As w/ any wildlife habitat is "best" when there are sufficient cover, water(tad sites), and food. Change any of these variables will change the dynamic of the group and possibly make territoriality and issue.
> ...


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

I know that some frogs are more vertically oriented than others, but wouldn't a square footage(inch) per frog be a better recommendation than frogs per gallon or cubic inches?

For tincs something like 1 square foot per frog, would give 2 animals for a 20 gal tall but only 4 for a 55 gal and 8 for a 120 gal tank.

I have 5 leucs in a 30 gal tall (has the foot print of a 20 gal) at the recommendation of a couple good breeders, but as they are growing, I think they might be a little crowded.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Phil

What we have to remember is that the "10 gallon" fish tank is undoubtably THE most common and cheapest tank. It is found everywhere. Every walmart, every pet store on and on...

We need to use the "gallon aquarium reference" because that's what is easiest to go by and universal. It also helps because we have a lot of young kids that need the simple reference as well.

As was stated in the above postings....the 10 gallon reference is not scientifc nor conclusive and the other factors and variables come into play of course.

But

It is simply the _starting point_ of size and frog quantity reference that is most easily understood and recognizable.

Phil


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

Philsuma said:


> Phil
> 
> ......
> We need to use the "gallon aquarium reference" because that's what is easiest to go by and universal. It also helps because we have a lot of young kids that need the simple reference as well.
> ...


Phil

First of all let me say that I am new to keeping frog and all I know is what I have read so far. What I have read in the last 3 pages is that the 5 gal per frog rule falls apart as soon as you get past a 10 gal tank. If the number of frogs you can keep is largely based on the footprint of the tank(and maybe it's not, but that is what I am understanding) and not the number of gallons then why not incorporate that into the rule? 

Can I put 2 azureus in a 10 gal vert.? No, not enough floor space. Can I put 10 tincs in a 36" 50 gal tank? Probably not. How about 13 in a 75 gal tall?

I understand the need for a simple "rule of thumb" but it seems to me that if you are going to have a general rule then it ought to apply to more the one or two out of 100 situations. 

Not to be elitist but, if someone isn't bright enough to figure out sq. feet or inches then maybe they should be discouraged from keeping dart frogs in the first place.

Not trying to change the world here, but I've never had much use for rules that have a lot of exceptions. Probably why I'm not a very good speller. 

Phil (finding this salutation/signature thing very funny)


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

For a rule I`d say 10 gal/frog until you get to 5 frogs, I`d never keep other than juvis at more than 5/tank. I don`tr know who threw the 5 gal / frog in there. But for a 55 that was what I was going w/ 4-5 / 55 gal tank. Someone else chimed in w/ 10 and said some might get skinny.
There is no ultimate rule. It`s appr 10gal/frog and watch for aggression. No one can predict sex ratio, some are more aggressive than others and tank designs are different. It would take a book to recommend densities for all the species, morphs and designs out there.
And this doesn`t cover whether your going to be testing for parasites. Your going to hit superinfection level 3 times as fast w/ 3 times as many frogs. Which, I believe, is why monster tanks are the only thing that works for some people that last more than a year or 2.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

phender said:


> What I have read in the last 3 pages is that the 5 gal per frog rule falls apart as soon as you get past a 10 gal tank. If the number of frogs you can keep is largely based on the footprint of the tank(and maybe it's not, but that is what I am understanding) and not the number of gallons then why not incorporate that into the rule?


That's the point about using 10 gallons to start. There should be no 5 gallon reference at all. 5 gallons per frog is _substandard_. We need to establish that 10 gallon per frog is the _minimum_.



> Can I put 2 azureus in a 10 gal vert.? No, not enough floor space. Can I put 10 tincs in a 36" 50 gal tank? Probably not. How about 13 in a 75 gal tall?


You can _start _your viv designing ideas with the above frogs this way:

You can put 1 Azureus in a 10 gallon (should not be vert, but you probably knew that due to the species). You can start considering 4-5 Tinc type frogs for that 50 gallon and possibly 6-7 in that 75 gallon tall.

You see, without even seeing your tanks, their orientation and your planting ideas....I have gotten a decent _starting point_ for the quantity of inhabitants. This really helps when you are looking at weird size tanks on craigslist.



> I understand the need for a simple "rule of thumb" but it seems to me that if you are going to have a general rule then it ought to apply to more the one or two out of 100 situations.


Actually I would say it applies to closer than 89 out of 100 situations and I think it's helpful....not exact....helpful.



> Not to be elitist but, if someone isn't bright enough to figure out sq. feet or inches then maybe they should be discouraged from keeping dart frogs in the first place.


That does sound bad.....that statement. I'm sure there are some mentally disabled or challenged people who keep frogs as well as other animals.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I'm not sure why this has gotten so people so worked up.. 

The historical reference point was the 5 gallon/frog that originated at least more than a decade or two ago. This reference has been around a long time.... 
Now using ten gallons/frog is also going to be problematic as the tanks get bigger as it follows the same problems as 5 gallons/frog.

Using square inches/area is also going to have issues as the amount of space required by the frogs in this case is dependent on how the resources are partioned in the enclosure. For a hypothetical example, you could place four tinctorius in a 75 gallon enclosure but if you have one male and all of the egg deposition sites in one end of the tank, you are going to have a lot of fighting by the females for access to the male. 

So what do we need to take away from this point

1) the spatial reccomendations are not hard rules (and were never meant to be), they are simply guidelines and guidelines can be bent or broken if the correct condition are met
2) more space is better if it can be accomedated and properly set up
3) properly set-up smaller enclosures may (stress may here) be better for the frogs than improperly set up larger enclosures 
4) resource partioning plays a huge role in getting enclosures with multiple animal correctly set up

Some thoughts

Ed


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

You are 100% correct Ed. All of "us" - the experienced froggers, know all about spatial requirements, egg deposition sites, retreats, hides, terracing ,sloped hardscaped, planted backgrounds ect.

But....

We have to be prepared for a quick simple STARTING point - a one sentence answer for the *enevitable *newbie or youngster question. They are not going to measure an enclosure and do the math for cubic square feet, then additional husbandry issues, sex ratios and planting requirements can quickly follow and flow into the conversation.

Take at look at the title of this thread:

How many can I "FIT"....fit......

We need a Starting reference .We need to admit that the 10 gallon "fish tank" is not going away anytime soon. We need to incorporate it into the mainstream vocabulary. It is just now becoming widespread to avoid using the 10 gallon vert for a breeding pair of Pumilio and to give them something a little bigger. I remember seeing a rack of 20 ten gallon vert tanks ech containing a sucessfully breeding pair of pums. only 3 years ago. That particular breeder / hobbyist has since gone to larger Exo's and only uses the 10 gallons for grow out tanks and smaller thumbs.

Don't fight the 10 gallon reference and keep denouncing it....instead,use it as a starting point and follow it up with the additional husbandry issues and space requirements.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Philsuma said:


> Don't fight the 10 gallon reference and keep denouncing it....instead,use it as a starting point and follow it up with the additional husbandry issues and space requirements.


What I am argueing is that because people just say 5/10/20 gallons and do not qualify it so it becomes entrenched as set in cement dogma. This does not do anything for the frogs, the keeper or the husbandry overall.. 

Ed


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

Philsuma said:


> .....Don't fight the 10 gallon reference and keep denouncing it....instead,use it as a starting point and follow it up with the additional husbandry issues and space requirements.


I didn't mean to be fighting. I was just trying to understand why the 5 gallon per frog guideline was being used, if it wasn't valid in any case but small tanks. A 10 gal per frog guideline, although having the same problem as tanks get bigger, at least allows for more more space than needed in some cases rather than overcrowding in many cases.

Edit:
Phil, 
After re-reading this from the start, I realize that we are saying the same thing. You don't like the 5 gal/frog rule and think it should be 10 gal. I thought that if the 5 gal/frog rule doesn't work, then would a square foot rule be more workable. I think the 10 gal/frog rule is a good compromise.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

No problem Phil.....this is one of those "hard to discuss without showing you an actual working viv - type of topics".

Ed referenced a "5 gallon per guideline" but I have never heard of the 5 gallon (thank the lord) references. 

I have always heard the "10 gallon" references.

The 10 gallon "fish tank" vert set up was the staple for breeding Pum and thumbs quite a few years ago, as I understand it.

Now....with the advent of Exoterra and Zoo med....we finally have a Euro style tank that is larger and better suited to proper husbandry and breeding.

Large super tanks are very popular and that's were we get into the big discussions ect, on "filling them up"....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

That's what happens when your around as long as me.... 

keep in mind that when referencing volume or square areas that there are a lot of ways to get that volume/area.. 

an area that is 10 by 10 has the same area as an area that is 5 by 20 or 1 by 100... and you can have many different iterations for volume. 

This is why the recommendations are fine so long as we keep them from becoming dogma. 

Ed


----------

