Which is easier? Big tank or little tank?

Sk8r · 01/08/2016, 11:28 AM

The smaller the system, the more need for precision, and the more chance that one little mistake can screw things up...because chemistry just IS: it doesn't 'scale' in need for precision; and you're constantly using math to divide doses into tiny fractions, and then have to eyeball it to see if that is really 1/16th teaspoon. And what do you do with one drop per 50 gallons, when your tank is a 20?

In a small tank it is particularly hard to provide enough oxygen, enough cycled bacteria to handle waste, and enough room for fish used to an ocean (because most are caught there) to adjust to a glass box.

A sump is an instant massive increase in processing power and (given you have a halfway decent skimmer) a massive increase in oxygenation. It can't help re swimming room, but it can improve water quality. It can also help in ease of water changes. And it is REAL useful in managing an autotopoff system.

The small system does have an advantage in water changes: it's a lot easier to pull out and replace one gallon of water than it is many gallons of water. And it's a lot easier to find a place for a smaller tank.
It's a good choice for a special-species tank, where the habit of the critter is to eat other tankmates, say. Or where other things eat IT.
And it's a good choice for a mobile lifestyle: put the critters in a bucket and transport the tank dry, in a box, re-set-up in an hour or so, give or take cycling needs.
-------------
The larger the tank the more stable, the harder it is for a little mistake to make a big problem. It's a question of scale. And speaking of scale, you're multiplying teaspoons, not trying to divide one, which is much easier.
You also have more room for automations, more room for a sump, more room and more leeway for everything.
And you're more able to provide a large enough home for more species.
You also have less problem with having enough rock for processing power, unless you overcrowd the tank or get really messy species.
Again, a sump provides you a lot of advantages.
And if you are a fish-only, a larger filter system is just less fussy and handles things better.
If you are a reef, then you don't have a filter system, but more rock is a far better processor of the waste your crew produces.
Whether or not you have a controller, your larger system gives you the opportunity to have full-scale equipment that functions well.
And if you are having a problem, it will come on much more slowly than in a small system: the whole system is more stable and less prone to disastrous sudden changes.

Where you are at disadvantage is in water changes, which are a lot of gallons, and in mobility. A tank move is a real undertaking.

cloak · 01/08/2016, 02:08 PM

It's all the same IME...

If you think those extra gallons might save you, think again...

A 10 gallon tank with a 10 gallon sump is a 20 gallon tank without a sump and so on and so forth...

skp · 01/08/2016, 02:16 PM

I think it depends what livestock you're going to keep. You can keep an easy 5 gallon or a hard 5 gallon. Same goes for a 500 gallon I would think (I never had a 500 gallon before).

cloak · 01/08/2016, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skp

I think it depends what livestock you're going to keep. You can keep an easy 5 gallon or a hard 5 gallon.

Can you please define this for me please?

U are the one that's keeping it/them/those alive no matter what...

Greybeard · 01/08/2016, 02:27 PM

This being reefcentral, I'm going with a reef tank here... Stable water quality is key to success. The term 'water it down' is an idiom for a reason. Within reason, bigger is better, but there comes a point of diminishing returns. I generally recommend to new marine aquarium keepers something in the 30 to 70 gallon size. Smaller than 30, and balancing water quality gets tough. Bigger than 70, and your maintenance effort, along with costs, increase beyond what most beginners are willing to invest.

I've seen some cool as hell micro reefs, even as small as 2 gallons. Maintaining something like this is an expert level challenge. I've seem awesome behemoth aquariums that you need a scuba license to maintain, once again, an expert level challenge... along with a large dedicated budget.

A 30-70 gallon system can be had for a reasonable amount of money, and has enough capacity to buy you some time. Bad things don't happen as rapidly as they do in a smaller volume of water.

So, in answer to your question, medium sized is easiest.

skp · 01/08/2016, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloak

Can you please define this for me please?

U are the one that's keeping it/them/those alive no matter what...

You can keep an easy 5 gallon tank with a prawn goby and a some zoanthids or hard 5 gallon tank with a seahorse and sps.

BlackTip · 01/08/2016, 02:40 PM

Big tank, big money, big commitment, a lot of time.

cloak · 01/08/2016, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skp

You can keep an easy 5 gallon tank with a prawn goby and a some zoanthids or hard 5 gallon tank with a seahorse and sps.

I'm not seeing the difference... Lighting, food, parameters etc...

skp · 01/08/2016, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloak

I'm not seeing the difference... Lighting, food, parameters etc...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean or if we are even talking about the same thing.

I meant that a small 5 gallon tank with a small/easy fish and some softies can thrive with just water changes and no mechanical/chemical filtration and no skimmer. And this is quite easier to maintain than a small 5 gallon tank with a seahorse (that requires specialized feeding procedures) and sps that require higher flow, higher lighting, cleaner water and dosing.

cloak · 01/08/2016, 03:39 PM

lol, Didn't I just say that above?

No worries main. GL..

newbie2014 · 01/08/2016, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skp

I'm not exactly sure what you mean or if we are even talking about the same thing.

I meant that a small 5 gallon tank with a small/easy fish and some softies can thrive with just water changes and no mechanical/chemical filtration and no skimmer. And this is quite easier to maintain than a small 5 gallon tank with a seahorse (that requires specialized feeding procedures) and sps that require higher flow, higher lighting, cleaner water and dosing.

I'm with that. It depends on what you want in your tank. Being a noob, I can see how easy it is to have a FOWLR vs reef tank.

Sk8r · 01/08/2016, 11:27 PM

Actually, I think a FOWLR is harder than a reef.

Scorpius · 01/08/2016, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackTip

Big tank, big money, big commitment, a lot of time.

I find this hobby a labor of love. I would love to have a 300+ gallon reef tank someday.

WaReefer458 · 01/09/2016, 05:57 AM

To put it in perspective for you I started with a 75 with a 20g sump. I could keep anything in there with minimal effort. After moving it numerous times I broke it down and went tankless for 3 years. I just recently started a 40g and used the sump from my 75 thinking it would be easy to manage and bought a lot of high end gadgets for it. I have never been so wrong. The 40 is so much harder to keep everything stable and the imitations to livestock sucks. My next tank is going to be a 200dd and I'll use the 40 for a qt tank. I think unless you have lots of time and want to check water quality often, anything smaller than 75 is just a pain.

Dmorty217 · 01/09/2016, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skp

I think it depends what livestock you're going to keep. You can keep an easy 5 gallon or a hard 5 gallon. Same goes for a 500 gallon I would think (I never had a 500 gallon before).

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is startup cost... The bigger the tank the more it costs you for everything.

gmlee · 01/09/2016, 09:05 AM

I had a 72 gallon bow front many years ago without a sump. I had no fancy equipment except the basics. Had T5 lighting but not strong enough to try demanding corals so I settled for some soft coral and for the most part I did OK.
My alkalinity was a bit low at times but all other parameters seemed OK. After 8 years or so I got a little tired of doing the water changes bucket by bucket so I shut it down. I did miss it after awhile and so did the cat. I thought if I ever got another tank it would be smaller so I could afford stronger lighting for more interesting and beautiful coral. I had a 25 gallon tank sitting around for years and wanted to set it up thinking freshwater but my experience convinced me otherwise. So the journey continued in a smaller tank. Bought Kessil lighting and eventually an Apex and a few clown fish and some monitipora as time went on. I went through the uglies cycling the tank and it went very slowly before everything cleared. I never did get my nitrates down though. Now I transferred all into a 40 breeder tank still with no sump but not counting it out maybe somewhere down the road. I think a larger tank is the way to go for I never had problems in my 72 gallon but I was limited on the equipment side. I had spent more money on my 25 gallon than I ever did on my 72 but I have problems with a smaller tank because of my nitrates. Yes I have the better lighting and the coral I want but now I struggle to keep my coral alive and growing. Hopefully by upgrading a little things will improve.

newbie2014 · 01/09/2016, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sk8r

Actually, I think a FOWLR is harder than a reef.

Interesting. Maybe, it's because I have had such a bad luck with keeping corals.....

Just like freshwater; fish only tank is kid's work. But throwing live plants in there and making them grow is another thing.

Mind elaborate your point?

newbie2014 · 01/09/2016, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmorty217

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is startup cost... The bigger the tank the more it costs you for everything.

Right on point. Not a lot of newbie can swallow that cost. That's why mine is a puny 40G.

Dmorty217 · 01/09/2016, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbie2014

Right on point. Not a lot of newbie can swallow that cost. That's why mine is a puny 40G.

Small is great though. I had a 29g bio cube 10 years ago and it was one of my favorite tanks I have ever owned and I have tanks ranging in size from 10g all the way up to 625g

newbie2014 · 01/09/2016, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaReefer458

To put it in perspective for you I started with a 75 with a 20g sump. I could keep anything in there with minimal effort. After moving it numerous times I broke it down and went tankless for 3 years. I just recently started a 40g and used the sump from my 75 thinking it would be easy to manage and bought a lot of high end gadgets for it. I have never been so wrong. The 40 is so much harder to keep everything stable and the imitations to livestock sucks. My next tank is going to be a 200dd and I'll use the 40 for a qt tank. I think unless you have lots of time and want to check water quality often, anything smaller than 75 is just a pain.

I'm still trying to figure out what makes it harder to keep 4 fish in a 40G vs 8 fish in a 75G.

Sk8r · 01/09/2016, 10:35 AM

Elaborating the 'reef is easier than FOWLR or fish-only' ---first of all, corals aren't plants. They're animals. They expand and contract, they eat, they excrete, and some of them move. They also grow and multiply fairly fast once they get established.

Why easier than fish? They don't jump, don't get ich or lymphocystis or flukes---though they have their own parasites, a dip in medicated water is an easier protocol, and they don't get a whole range of fishy ills. Their diet is partially light, partially floating food: they have photosynthetic bacteria in their skin that provides them sugars when exposed to light.

They also, unlike fish, don't just keel over dead. They tell you early when the water's 'off' or the conditions aren't good. They tell you that by tucking up and not expanding. If I walked past my tank and saw the corals contracted even a little, I'd immediately run for the test kits to learn what's wrong with the water---even though my fish are bravely swimming about, not complaining until they just die of the problem.

Fragile---not so much. Physically, you don't want to tear their skin, which prevents them from inflating. But in the presence of bad water, they expel water and flatten until the water's better...which lets them survive ammonia, eg, that would kill a fish within three days.

I never have to wonder whether the water's good, between my routine tests. The corals also provide additional folded space, hiding places for the smaller fish, a pleasant sensation, apparently, for others, who like to hang out in it or sleep in it at night.

newbie2014 · 01/09/2016, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dmorty217

Small is great though. I had a 29g bio cube 10 years ago and it was one of my favorite tanks I have ever owned and I have tanks ranging in size from 10g all the way up to 625g

Me thinking: if I can manage the 40G, then I can do a future 125G blindfolded.

Psychomantix · 01/09/2016, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sk8r

Actually, I think a FOWLR is harder than a reef.

I agree with this. Corals are a much faster indicator of when things are off, allowing you more time to catch it and fix it. By the time fish starts showing signs that something is wrong, you're pretty much hooped.

davocean · 01/09/2016, 10:43 AM

Because a larger volume of water will be more forgiving.
Just for example a fish dies in a 10g it's going to have a much greater affect than a fish dying in a 100g tank.
Temps are more stable in a larger volume of water, a power outage for example can drop a small tank volume temp much faster.
It's more critical your dosing has to be correct.
It's definitely easier to keep params stable in a larger volume of water.
There does come a point when going large definitely becomes more expensive, and more work, but for the most part I do agree it's easier to keep a larger volume of water stable.

newbie2014 · 01/09/2016, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sk8r

Elaborating the 'reef is easier than FOWLR or fish-only' ---first of all, corals aren't plants. They're animals. They expand and contract, they eat, they excrete, and some of them move. They also grow and multiply fairly fast once they get established.

Why easier than fish? They don't jump, don't get ich or lymphocystis or flukes---though they have their own parasites, a dip in medicated water is an easier protocol, and they don't get a whole range of fishy ills. Their diet is partially light, partially floating food: they have photosynthetic bacteria in their skin that provides them sugars when exposed to light.

They also, unlike fish, don't just keel over dead. They tell you early when the water's 'off' or the conditions aren't good. They tell you that by tucking up and not expanding. If I walked past my tank and saw the corals contracted even a little, I'd immediately run for the test kits to learn what's wrong with the water---even though my fish are bravely swimming about, not
complaining until they just die of the problem.

Fragile---not so much. Physically, you don't want to tear their skin, which prevents them from inflating. But in the presence of bad water, they expel water and flatten until the water's better...which lets them survive ammonia, eg, that would kill a fish within three days.

I never have to wonder whether the water's good, between my routine tests. The corals also provide additional folded space, hiding places for the smaller fish, a pleasant sensation, apparently, for others, who like to hang out in it or sleep in it at night.

Understood. Fish can be a timed bomb, while corals have warning signs. Thanks for the explanation.

But don't corals require more specific and "cleaner" water parameters just to get started? Alk, Phos, Ca, Mg......? They don't just drop dead, but get wilted away slowly. And that's not even factoring in the need for specific light spectrum and intensity, carbon, and to an extend GFO and skimmer.

01/08/2016, 11:28 AM	#1
Sk8r RC Mod Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 34,628 Blog Entries: 55	Which is easier? Big tank or little tank? The smaller the system, the more need for precision, and the more chance that one little mistake can screw things up...because chemistry just IS: it doesn't 'scale' in need for precision; and you're constantly using math to divide doses into tiny fractions, and then have to eyeball it to see if that is really 1/16th teaspoon. And what do you do with one drop per 50 gallons, when your tank is a 20? In a small tank it is particularly hard to provide enough oxygen, enough cycled bacteria to handle waste, and enough room for fish used to an ocean (because most are caught there) to adjust to a glass box. A sump is an instant massive increase in processing power and (given you have a halfway decent skimmer) a massive increase in oxygenation. It can't help re swimming room, but it can improve water quality. It can also help in ease of water changes. And it is REAL useful in managing an autotopoff system. The small system does have an advantage in water changes: it's a lot easier to pull out and replace one gallon of water than it is many gallons of water. And it's a lot easier to find a place for a smaller tank. It's a good choice for a special-species tank, where the habit of the critter is to eat other tankmates, say. Or where other things eat IT. And it's a good choice for a mobile lifestyle: put the critters in a bucket and transport the tank dry, in a box, re-set-up in an hour or so, give or take cycling needs. ------------- The larger the tank the more stable, the harder it is for a little mistake to make a big problem. It's a question of scale. And speaking of scale, you're multiplying teaspoons, not trying to divide one, which is much easier. You also have more room for automations, more room for a sump, more room and more leeway for everything. And you're more able to provide a large enough home for more species. You also have less problem with having enough rock for processing power, unless you overcrowd the tank or get really messy species. Again, a sump provides you a lot of advantages. And if you are a fish-only, a larger filter system is just less fussy and handles things better. If you are a reef, then you don't have a filter system, but more rock is a far better processor of the waste your crew produces. Whether or not you have a controller, your larger system gives you the opportunity to have full-scale equipment that functions well. And if you are having a problem, it will come on much more slowly than in a small system: the whole system is more stable and less prone to disastrous sudden changes. Where you are at disadvantage is in water changes, which are a lot of gallons, and in mobility. A tank move is a real undertaking. __________________ Sk8r Salinity 1.024-6; alkalinity 8.3-9.3 on KH scale; calcium 420; magnesium 1300, temp 78-80, nitrate .2. Ammonia 0. No filters: lps tank. Alk and cal won't rise if mg is low. Current Tank Info: 105g AquaVim wedge, yellow tang, sailfin blenny,royal gramma, ocellaris clown pair, yellow watchman, 100 microceriths, 25 tiny hermits, a 4" conch, 1" nassarius, recovering from 2 year hiatus with daily water change of 10%.

01/08/2016, 02:40 PM	#7
BlackTip Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,598	Big tank, big money, big commitment, a lot of time. __________________ 325G DT. 100G sump. In-sump refugium. SRO-5000SSS. 2 Gyres 150. 2 Water Blaster HY-5000. 2 Razor 320W. Apex Gold. MR2 GFO. 2 800W Heaters. Tunze Osmolater. 2 20g-long QT tanks. Geo 624 CA. 80W UV

01/08/2016, 11:27 PM	#12
Sk8r RC Mod Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 34,628 Blog Entries: 55	Actually, I think a FOWLR is harder than a reef. __________________ Sk8r Salinity 1.024-6; alkalinity 8.3-9.3 on KH scale; calcium 420; magnesium 1300, temp 78-80, nitrate .2. Ammonia 0. No filters: lps tank. Alk and cal won't rise if mg is low. Current Tank Info: 105g AquaVim wedge, yellow tang, sailfin blenny,royal gramma, ocellaris clown pair, yellow watchman, 100 microceriths, 25 tiny hermits, a 4" conch, 1" nassarius, recovering from 2 year hiatus with daily water change of 10%.

01/09/2016, 10:35 AM	#21
Sk8r RC Mod Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Spokane WA Posts: 34,628 Blog Entries: 55	Elaborating the 'reef is easier than FOWLR or fish-only' ---first of all, corals aren't plants. They're animals. They expand and contract, they eat, they excrete, and some of them move. They also grow and multiply fairly fast once they get established. Why easier than fish? They don't jump, don't get ich or lymphocystis or flukes---though they have their own parasites, a dip in medicated water is an easier protocol, and they don't get a whole range of fishy ills. Their diet is partially light, partially floating food: they have photosynthetic bacteria in their skin that provides them sugars when exposed to light. They also, unlike fish, don't just keel over dead. They tell you early when the water's 'off' or the conditions aren't good. They tell you that by tucking up and not expanding. If I walked past my tank and saw the corals contracted even a little, I'd immediately run for the test kits to learn what's wrong with the water---even though my fish are bravely swimming about, not complaining until they just die of the problem. Fragile---not so much. Physically, you don't want to tear their skin, which prevents them from inflating. But in the presence of bad water, they expel water and flatten until the water's better...which lets them survive ammonia, eg, that would kill a fish within three days. I never have to wonder whether the water's good, between my routine tests. The corals also provide additional folded space, hiding places for the smaller fish, a pleasant sensation, apparently, for others, who like to hang out in it or sleep in it at night. __________________ Sk8r Salinity 1.024-6; alkalinity 8.3-9.3 on KH scale; calcium 420; magnesium 1300, temp 78-80, nitrate .2. Ammonia 0. No filters: lps tank. Alk and cal won't rise if mg is low. Current Tank Info: 105g AquaVim wedge, yellow tang, sailfin blenny,royal gramma, ocellaris clown pair, yellow watchman, 100 microceriths, 25 tiny hermits, a 4" conch, 1" nassarius, recovering from 2 year hiatus with daily water change of 10%.

01/09/2016, 10:43 AM	#24
davocean Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 14,655	Because a larger volume of water will be more forgiving. Just for example a fish dies in a 10g it's going to have a much greater affect than a fish dying in a 100g tank. Temps are more stable in a larger volume of water, a power outage for example can drop a small tank volume temp much faster. It's more critical your dosing has to be correct. It's definitely easier to keep params stable in a larger volume of water. There does come a point when going large definitely becomes more expensive, and more work, but for the most part I do agree it's easier to keep a larger volume of water stable. __________________ There's a fine line between owning your tank and your tank owning you! Current Tank Info: SCA 120g RR Starfire, Tunze silence 1073.02 return, 40g sump w/ fuge, SWC Extreme 160 cone skimmer,Geismann reflexx 4xT5, 2x Panorama Pro LED strips, Vortech MP40QD

01/08/2016, 02:08 PM	#2
cloak Moved On Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Stockton, CA Posts: 14,854	It's all the same IME... If you think those extra gallons might save you, think again... A 10 gallon tank with a 10 gallon sump is a 20 gallon tank without a sump and so on and so forth...

01/08/2016, 02:16 PM	#3
skp Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 205	I think it depends what livestock you're going to keep. You can keep an easy 5 gallon or a hard 5 gallon. Same goes for a 500 gallon I would think (I never had a 500 gallon before).

01/08/2016, 02:27 PM	#5
Greybeard Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Buffalo, MO Posts: 651	This being reefcentral, I'm going with a reef tank here... Stable water quality is key to success. The term 'water it down' is an idiom for a reason. Within reason, bigger is better, but there comes a point of diminishing returns. I generally recommend to new marine aquarium keepers something in the 30 to 70 gallon size. Smaller than 30, and balancing water quality gets tough. Bigger than 70, and your maintenance effort, along with costs, increase beyond what most beginners are willing to invest. I've seen some cool as hell micro reefs, even as small as 2 gallons. Maintaining something like this is an expert level challenge. I've seem awesome behemoth aquariums that you need a scuba license to maintain, once again, an expert level challenge... along with a large dedicated budget. A 30-70 gallon system can be had for a reasonable amount of money, and has enough capacity to buy you some time. Bad things don't happen as rapidly as they do in a smaller volume of water. So, in answer to your question, medium sized is easiest.

01/08/2016, 03:39 PM	#10
cloak Moved On Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Stockton, CA Posts: 14,854	lol, Didn't I just say that above? No worries main. GL..

01/09/2016, 05:57 AM	#14
WaReefer458 Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 333	To put it in perspective for you I started with a 75 with a 20g sump. I could keep anything in there with minimal effort. After moving it numerous times I broke it down and went tankless for 3 years. I just recently started a 40g and used the sump from my 75 thinking it would be easy to manage and bought a lot of high end gadgets for it. I have never been so wrong. The 40 is so much harder to keep everything stable and the imitations to livestock sucks. My next tank is going to be a 200dd and I'll use the 40 for a qt tank. I think unless you have lots of time and want to check water quality often, anything smaller than 75 is just a pain.

01/09/2016, 09:05 AM	#16
gmlee Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Canada Posts: 387	I had a 72 gallon bow front many years ago without a sump. I had no fancy equipment except the basics. Had T5 lighting but not strong enough to try demanding corals so I settled for some soft coral and for the most part I did OK. My alkalinity was a bit low at times but all other parameters seemed OK. After 8 years or so I got a little tired of doing the water changes bucket by bucket so I shut it down. I did miss it after awhile and so did the cat. I thought if I ever got another tank it would be smaller so I could afford stronger lighting for more interesting and beautiful coral. I had a 25 gallon tank sitting around for years and wanted to set it up thinking freshwater but my experience convinced me otherwise. So the journey continued in a smaller tank. Bought Kessil lighting and eventually an Apex and a few clown fish and some monitipora as time went on. I went through the uglies cycling the tank and it went very slowly before everything cleared. I never did get my nitrates down though. Now I transferred all into a 40 breeder tank still with no sump but not counting it out maybe somewhere down the road. I think a larger tank is the way to go for I never had problems in my 72 gallon but I was limited on the equipment side. I had spent more money on my 25 gallon than I ever did on my 72 but I have problems with a smaller tank because of my nitrates. Yes I have the better lighting and the coral I want but now I struggle to keep my coral alive and growing. Hopefully by upgrading a little things will improve.