Aquarium sizes

[harryH]

It used to be in the old days😉 yes I go way back! that the most FAQ for newcomers was 'what size tank should I start with.?'. The answer usually came back along the lines "go for the biggest tank you can afford and accommodate". The thinking being that most peoples enthusiasm would quickly outgrow anything they chose as a start up and would result in much expense replacing their aquarium and all the equipment for something much larger.

Since coming back into the hobby well and truly in the bus pass era of my life!!, I wonder just how this philosophy compares these days to those entering the planted aquarium world for the first time?
Things have certainly moved on and it seem to me there is so much pleasure to be had from a smaller set up when considering a fully planted scape, Dutch, Jungle what have you, than there ever was in yesteryear.

I'm preaching to no one here in any way and there is no doubt this question is far less relevant to those with a large budget.

Having spent a few weeks reading up (catching up) on this great site I am humbled and realise just how little I fully understand even after tens of years in the hobby.
Plenty of things I am extremely comfortable with yet systems and technologies are employed today in relation to water parameters, chemistry, lighting that simply were seldom if ever considered by the average aquarist all those years ago.
Certainly few if any of the modern day 'goodies' were available in the LFS and "online" was somwhere to hang the washing!!.

So, having read the various sections and looked at the problems many newcomers appear to face, I ask the question "have things gone a little in reverse" whereby it maybe better in this high tech., era to consider starting small and progressing slowly to a larger set up as things develop?.

I do see many posts of people battling with problems such as algae, melting plants, bacterial blooms etc., and in every case the answers come back from our experts pointing out inadequacies in the set up in one way or another.

It appears to me (and this is only my observation to which I stand to be corrected) that many of the problem tanks are approaching or in excess of 200 ltrs. In other words quite large in volume.
As the solutions mostly recommended relate to things like " insufficient water movement" ", Not enough light" " Not enough CO2" Too little Ferts" etc. etc. It begs the question Is it just inexperience or has the person in question started too ambitiously?

I say this because the answers can only be rectified by larger filters, additional powerheads, larger and more efficient CO2 sets, more ferts, better lights etc and this amounts to a considerable spend.

Could it be then that we should be pointing our young or new enthusiasts in exactly the opposite direction to the one I encountered in my youth and encouraging them to begin smaller and more slowly, or am I just an old fool with some catching up to do?

It would be interesting to know the views of others.

Cheers
Harry

 

[tim]

Personally I think a good old 2ft aquarium is a good start for aquascaping big enough for stability, yet still affordable equipment wise, as for lighting I still think people in general underestimate how powerful t5s and some of the LEDs on the market are which is why you see so many threads on algae or I've gassed my fish, I've certainly struggled to balance my tanks since moving from t8s to t5s.

 

[G H Nelson]

Hi Harry
Nice to see your back into aquariums.
As Tim say a 2 feet tank would be ideal re-start...smaller tanks have there own issues.

Too long lighting periods and bright lighting gives newcomers the biggest headaches....diatoms/algae problems.
Start lower lighting and take things slow...try and grow healthy easy plants first then work up to growing the intermediate type.
You will enjoy it more.
Purchase a planting substrate... fast growing stem and runner plants also floating plants.
Purchase a regulator that has a adjustable working pressure if your going to use Co2 injection.
hoggie

 

[George Farmer]

"Less is more" and "quality over quantity". That's my bag.

 

[Claire]

Properly small tanks can cause problems with lighting and fertiliser dosing IME, but then too big a tank is difficult to get enough flow around to disperse CO2. Somewhere around 100l would be a good compromise in terms of ease of flow and being able to stock a decent shoal of fish.

 

[sa80mark]

As tim has said a 2ft is imo the perfect size to start with but you have to also think about tank shape again imo a standard 24x12x12 or 15 is much easier to get good flow in where as some of the shallower tanks such as tmc's 24x12x18 wide take a bit more experimenting to get good flow and co2 distribution

 

[harryH]

As tim has said a 2ft is imo the perfect size to start with but you have to also think about tank shape again imo a standard 24x12x12 or 15 is much easier to get good flow in where as some of the shallower tanks such as tmc's 24x12x18 wide take a bit more experimenting to get good flow and co2 distribution

That's so true Mark, my own tank is approx 24" x 14" wide, I have an Eheim Ecco 200 ( rated 600 ltrs hr) to a spray bar and a Koralia 900 and I still have a corner to which I struggle to get the best flow. I'm still experimenting,

For this reason, as I've said in an earlier post I won't be stocking my new set up for 6 to 8 weeks until it's working exactly as I want it. Well that's the plan

 

[sanj]

The thinking being that most peoples enthusiasm would quickly outgrow anything they chose as a start up and would result in much expense replacing their aquarium and all the equipment for something much larger.

I believe a lot of the thinking was and is also to do with larger bodies of water being more stable and the often seen "kiddy in the sweet shop" affect that numerous varieties of tropical fish had on the newcomer often quickly led to over stocking.

I think on both fronts of flora and fauna bigger is better, but within limits. I wouldnt encourage a newcomer to the hobby to start with a 15 litre aquarium, but then I wouldnt encourage them to go out and by an aquarium with several hundred litres capacity. There is quite a bit of turnover in this hobby, I think this site caters more to niche that are generally (but not always) a little more immersed into aquarium keeping.

I wouldnt encourage less than 60 litres especially if fish are a major reason for why a person wants to keep an aquarium.

Its when people really start to get hooked and start upgrading to slightly larger tanks... thats when I say go for the biggest you can afford and accomodate because thats often when people start wasting a lot of money.

 

[greenink]

A smaller tank is easier to clean, keep pristine and do regular water changes. Which makes it a bit easier if you're the kind of person who doesn't like routine. So a good encouraging start.

A bigger one has a bit more room for error, but requires more elbow grease unless you can cleverly automate things like water changes, fert dosing and CO2 injection.

Also, helps a lot to plant heavily from the outset, so if you're not upgrading (and therefore have a lot of initial plant mass to transfer over) a big tank can be very expensive to plant at the start, unless you use a dry start or a propagator to grow things on a bit.

So horses for courses in my book.

The real difference with aquascaped tanks I think is that depth front to back is more important than ever - gives so much more potential for interesting layouts with perspective and layers. My two 'starter' tanks (70l and 280l) were both too narrow. My next one (480l) is about the same width as the 280l, less high and a lot deeper.

 

[harryH]

Hi greenlink, I would agree with all you said, the only omission you made was the significant cost of setting up a large tank over a small one.

Apart from more expensive plants which you mention, The tank itself and all the upgraded equipment plus extra substrate, hard scape etc cost quite a lot more. What I was trying to establish in my thread was that maybe too many beginners start off a little too ambitiously and in doing so find the cost prohibitive.
The problem in that case is that it is not really an option to cut back on equipment to offset that expense and if one attempts to do so, that's where they can run into problems trying to keep a balanced set up.

 

[James O]

If you go large early, I think low tech is the way to start. No CO2 & equipment, loads less lighting and cheaper slow growing plants. From there you can move on to CO2 etc safe in the knowledge you can run the tank a slower pace

 

[Andy Thurston]

I started with a 35l and i don't think its big enough for a beginner. I would say 24x14x14 would be perfect with plenty room for hardscape and plants, without costing a fortune for equipment. I never had enough room, I always wanted a bit more

 

[Kevin PC]

I started my plant tank sized 30x30x30cm and I kept many sakura shirmps with scaping by a tree root covered with moss and finally the tank was full of sakura shirmp,I felt cosy and pleasent.The smaller tank is easy to clean,keep pristine and do regular water changes and it is much cheaper than a bigger one,but the condition is relatively unstable.

Then I upgraded my tank with a 60x30x30cm after a couple of weeks and kept about 20 tetras but I felt the tank is a little small for these tetras so I changed a bigger one sized 90x45x45cm and I added 30 more tertras into the tank.

But after a couple of months I felt it's so tired to clear,keep pristine,especially water changes,In addition,at the end of 2011,I got married and I have to do the decoration of house,so I sold out all of my tanks.

One year ago,I was back to plant tank wtih a smaller tank sized 35x30x30cm,it's easy to handle and one exquisite tank is enough for me.

So I suggest a medium sized tank is the best choice for a newbbie.