Discussion - Bigger tanks are easier for the beginner, True or False?

[Snaz]

I think there is an accepted truth that bigger tanks are easier to keep and more suitable for beginners. I think this statement is false and I want to discuss it here. What are your opinions?

I think the myth that larger tanks are more stable and less prone to crashing is just not true. The problems and circumstances that could cause a tank to crash occur regardless of size.

In fact I argue that nano tanks are easier to recover if a problem happens. Smaller more frequent water changes, smaller amounts of carbon, easier to increase flow in an emergency.

Maintenance of nano tanks is far lighter, quicker and less costly which for the beginner means more likely they will stay with the hobby. If I was a retailer I would convince all new marine enthusiasts to by a nano first. If they can handle a nano and learn what it takes to successfully keep a marine system they will probably come back and purchase something bigger *and* be more successful in the hobby overall.

The problem is this myth that larger marine tanks are easier is perpetuated by the LFS because they want the big sales that come from large tanks. I know this to be true because I worked at an LFS for five years.

So discuss. Am I wrong?

[Aquattro]

I guess I would say somewhat, to a point. Smaller is tougher to maintain due to increased evaporation that may not be managed properly. Smaller portions of contaminants (oil on hands, etc) could have a bigger impact. Things like that. But ya, doing several 50% water changes on a 180 is not what I'd call easier :)
Balancing chemistry is probably the same in big or small. I've never had 90g as a reef, so not a lot of experience with small tanks, but I think there are probably as many pros and cons on both sides. Smaller is easier to manage financially I'm sure!

[Enigma]

I think nanos are easier, personally. In moving from a 10 gallon display to a 40 gallon display (both of which had the same sump), the time I spend doing maintenance has increased dramatically.

[Aquattro]

I think nanos are easier, personally. In moving from a 10 gallon display to a 40 gallon display (both of which had the same sump), the time I spend doing maintenance has increased dramatically.

Not sure that's a universal though. I spend 5 minutes a day during the week, 20 min on Saturdays and 1 hour twice a month for water changes and misc stuff on a 180. Not what I would consider a lot of maintenance.
I imagine if I had a smaller tank, the time wouldn't reduce a lot. Or maybe it would?

[michika]

Bigger tank = bigger mess.

I think smaller is easier once you've got everything dialed in, but they're tricker, more time consuming, to get to that point.

[sphelps]

smaller tanks are better for beginners IMO, this hobby is more expensive and more time consuming than most people realize. More often than not when people start with big tanks they end up being overwhelmed because it exceeds their budget or time allowance to do properly. Plus beginners usually go through a few phases of "ugly" all of which become harder to deal with the bigger the tank gets. You don't want too small either but 20 to 40 gallons is good size for people starting out IMO.

[jorjef]

smaller tanks are better for beginners IMO, this hobby is more expensive and more time consuming than most people realize. More often than not when people start with big tanks they end up being overwhelmed because it exceeds their budget or time allowance to do properly. Plus beginners usually go through a few phases of "ugly" all of which become harder to deal with the bigger the tank gets. You don't want too small either but 20 to 40 gallons is good size for people starting out IMO.


This should be gospel that all beginners should heed to. Bigger is not better when starting this hobby unless you have unlimited time, money and patience.

[Enigma]

Not sure that's a universal though. I spend 5 minutes a day during the week, 20 min on Saturdays and 1 hour twice a month for water changes and misc stuff on a 180. Not what I would consider a lot of maintenance.
I imagine if I had a smaller tank, the time wouldn't reduce a lot. Or maybe it would?

I've gone from five minutes every day, to five minutes a weekday plus an hour+ on weekends (water change, glass scrapping, powerhead cleaning, etc.). That includes all of the time I spend fussing with my ro/di unit and nsw, too.

The system is now very "gadgeted up," however. I spent five hours last weekend just moving the controller and all of the wires, adding two more powerbars, and reprogramming the outlets. I love my toys way too much.

I don't expect to see a big increase in maintenance time when I upgrade to the 120 in the spring, though. All of the equipment will move to the new display, so the water changes will just be bigger.

[fresh]

In my humble opinion and experience, nanos (10+ gals) are easier to setup, maintain, control, and correct if something goes wrong. They require a lot less time and money to do all the above.

Evaporation (what most people think is one of the biggest culprits in parameter-swings) is really not that bad especially if the setup has a top (a cup every few days).

Additionally, along the lines of Enigma's post above, the more "toys" you add to your setup, the more fidgeting you will have to do regardless of the size of the setup :) The simpler it is kept, the less things you can play with ;)

I truly think the biggest issue that hurts the new/beginner aquarist is not tank size or equipment, it really is husbandry knowledge (or lack of). Also knowledge of how much your tank size can handle and what it can and cannot do based on the included components.

All that said, nanos are also VERY limited in what you can keep in them. Most beginners are after tangs and angels, and have a stock-list that can only be accommodated in a 200+ gal tank!!!

My 2 cents.

[sphelps]

With more experience maintenance becomes easier and less time consuming. I know I spend little time maintaining my tanks once they are setup and it doesn't really matter what size they are. However if I think back and imagine if I started this hobby with the tank size I have now I would probably not be in the hobby anymore, nor would I still be married :lol:

I know I hear the phase "start with as big of a tank as you can" quite often but it's mostly in LFSs and it seems IMO to suggest something more along the lines "spend as much money here as you can".

[SeaHorse_Fanatic]

Easier? It really depends on the person and what they're trying to do.

What I find is that you spend a lot of money and effort doing the upgrade, which if you can get the small tank the way you like it, almost seems inevitable. Buying everything twice or three times as you upgrade is expensive (I know a lot of reefers who upgraded that many times in the first year or so, including myself).

A nano reef can also be just as expensive if you're going to go the more automated route, such as getting ATO, dosing/calcium reactors/controllers. Personally, if I'm going through that much trouble & expense, I'd rather do it on a bigger tank instead of a small "temporary" one that will get upgraded soon.

It also depends on whether its a fish only or reef. Small tanks have very limited bioload and it is very easy to exceed that carrying capacity and cause yourself headaches.

For a lot of people with limited space, an all-in-one (usually 14g to 34g) is a good solution.

For others who have more room, more $$ and time (and who are likely to get bit by the upgrade bug sooner rather than later), a larger tank is a better starting point. In a 4', my ideal tank has always been the 120g (4' x 2' x 2'). Max volume in min. space without getting your arm pits wet. I have known a few reefers who went the 55-75g to 90g to 120g upgrading route cause they only had 4' floor space available. So for me, if I can have only one tank and its a four-footer, I will go 120g. If its a 3' space, I would go 65g (3' x 18" x 2' tall). If my space is very limited, I'd get an all-in-one or cube.

As with everything else in this addiction, there are no definitive answers. Some people get into sw because they really want to keep tangs or large angels - so for them a 6' tank is needed and anything smaller is too small. I've known people who had terrible results with nanos but when they tried again with a bigger system, they had better luck. I've also known people who did great with a small system but couldn't seem to make the transition to a bigger tank when they upgraded.

The current (and past) nano reef contest is showing how there are many ways to do a nano (some will be KISS and others will be "break the bank" blinged out).

Getting an experienced reefer to mentor and help check out used systems can help get the best bang for the buck. IME, most reefers have a bit of OCD.
I am extremely OCD:redface:

This hobby can become extremely expensive very easily, which is why I never recommend people get into it. The first question I ask is "do you like having money in the bank?"

But if they are determined to make the jump into sw, then I am one of the believers in "the solution to pollution is dilution".

I also believe that it is more an art than a science.

[Psyire]

Big and small are relative. People with 300g+ systems consider 180g tanks to be small. My first fish tank of any kind was a 180g reef tank. I did however do months of reading and research before even buying 1 piece of equipment. That is something most people don't have time for or don't want to do as some people just want a fish tank plain and simple. My 180g is no longer running due to a tank failure but I'm in the process of setting up a new 38g Nuvo and a 208g. I've learnt a lot along the way and I don't really think tank size makes anything easier or harder. The interest and diligence of the hobbyist is what will make things hard or easy. That being said, the bigger the tank the more resources it will consume. (ie. Time & Money) For the 'average' person I would have to say 75g-90g is perfect as it's not crazy expensive and you won't continually hear "your tank is too small for that fish".

[ScubaSteve]

I'm of the opinion that the middle range is best (20-60 gallons). Too small and they become tricky due to evap, fluctuations, etc. Above 60 gallons I think they become too complicated and expensive for most beginners. But then again, any well set up system can be easy to manage.

What I think it comes down to, ultimately, is this: In this hobby you get out what you put in. I would rather see someone with a system that they feel they can manage in terms of effort, money and interest than follow some "rule of thumb". A smaller system is easier financially and a person is more likely/able to spend the money to fix a problem. If all the livestock you are interested in needs a 90 gallon, get the 90 because your interest may soon wane and the tank falls into disrepair. In terms of time, small to mid-sized tanks are best until you learn the tricks of what makes a hands-off system. Some people are quick studies in the hobby and could manage any system in a short time and there are some that just don't quite "get it" despite being in the hobby for years.

I think for every person there is a "right" first tank. I think we should either have a questionnaire or some other way of figuring out what tank that is.

[SeaHorse_Fanatic]

Great topic of discussion btw.

The best solution is really to do a lot of research ahead of time to figure out exactly what you want to keep, how much $$, time & space you have available, and go from there. As Psyire stated, "The interest and diligence of the hobbyist is what will make things hard or easy."

[Proteus]

I wish I would have started with a small tank. Although I loved my 180. It was expensive and required more maintence. With the small cube I have now. Its a breeze. No dosing or reactors. A 5 gallon wc every Friday my cal alk mg are at good levels. I only have 2 fish and 45 pieces of coral. Mostly sps

Now I did find that a crash was easier to achieve in a smaller amount of water volume. But in reality. It was my own fault.

Overall. I think smaller is better for new reefers as cost are down. I'm not even sure I would go back to a big tank

[Parker]

From a time and maintenance point of view my 265 requires a lot less of my time than any of my smaller tanks did, 30/75/90 gallon. That being said it was designed that way. In my opinion, to have a large tank you need either A) A fair amount of free time or B) Money, both would be ideal. Free time to do most of your maintenance and daily chores manually, dosing, water changes, top offs etc or money to automate several systems, controllers, top-offs, dosing pumps, reactors, outsource maintenance all together, blah blah blah. Without automation my tank would be a toy box by now. So a tank large or small can be as easy or as hard as you choose it to be.

[Coralgurl]

I started my 55 reef in March 2011 and the 180 in Feb 2012 so only reefing for a year and a half. No prior knowledge of the hobby and we basically jumped in. I found this forum 6 months after we started and relied on the LFS for advice previoulsy. I am not a research guru and as as newb, honestly didn't even know what to look for or where to start.

I can honestly say the 55 is much easier to maintain. It took 9 months for it to really settle into a nice system and has changed a couple of times since setting it up, but all in all, everything is easier. Water changes, dosing, maintenance, everything. Some things are automated with the 180, but mostly its all manual stuff I look after. Mostly, I find it overwhelming. I've dumped thousands of dollars into it and am still waiting for that "ahhhh moment" that I actually like it. I do have regrets with the 180, to the point that I have thought many times of shutting it down and selling off. Its definitely not from lack of effort and time put into it.

For some of you, this hobby is simple or at least you make it seem that way. I wish my upgrade was to a 90-120 gl. Maybe the upgrade from the 55 was too soon. I would never tell someone to go as big as possible, I would say to start below 100 gls. Would be great to find someone who is willing to mentor you, but chances are, its not going to happen.

[Aquattro]

For some of you, this hobby is simple or at least you make it seem that way. I wish my upgrade was to a 90-120 gl. Maybe the upgrade from the 55 was too soon. I would never tell someone to go as big as possible, I would say to start below 100 gls. Would be great to find someone who is willing to mentor you, but chances are, its not going to happen.

My first real reef was actually a 75g. It was a nice tank and my intro into SPS. I learned a lot with it, lots of it the hard way.
Maybe it's experience, but the only real difference between that tank and my 180 is the cost to run it. Maintenance is the same, although I've automated a lot now, and even a 50g water change only takes me 10 or 15 minutes. I don't muck around with it too much, more of a sit on the couch and stare at it phase now..

[Taaron]

I would say that larger tanks are easier to learn with. My first saltwater tank was 160 gallons. Several times i was able to save corals or fish in my tank. The parameters stayed very stable. I had no previous experience. I do agree however that the maintenance is much more. Meaning topping up the tank, additives, water changes, and cleaning. I started a great reef tank for about $2000 and we all know that isnt very much when it comes to this hobby.

[reefwars]

its not that bigger is easier ...bigger is more forgiving.for things alot of new reeferes find frustrating.



lets say you get a head of aiptasia on a frag, in a large tank it would take more time to become a problem where it spread over every rock , whats a problem in a large tank is a plague in a nano...... this i know:(


water issues are going to be roughly the same ,if your cutting cost out of the equation a water change is a water change and media is media, fact is a nano is cheaper to run financially though.


i know in a large tank fish problems are way more forgiving then in nanos, lets face it very few stick to actual "nano fish"


people tend to feed small tanks the same as large tanks which leads to problems and if your like me people fill their tanks with corals as if they are larger tanks.



i think both large tanks and small tanks have problems unique to them so neither is my vote.

[Proteus]

Yeah Denny on of my biggest issues with small tank was over feeding. But I got it world out. With 2nano fish one block of mysis will last a week. And your right I also have overstocked coral. And if sh?t goes south. It's faster in my lil tank

[intarsiabox]

I would have to say my favorite tank I ever had was a 25g I had set up for 2 years on my kitchen counter. I had an aqua C HOB skimmer, aquaclear filter, heater and T5HO lights. Livestock was limited to 4 smaller fish, no sand and a real mixed bag of corals. Everthing grew like crazy, no algae or cyno ever showed up and no dosing was ever required as a one bucket water change each week did a 25% refresh. The only down side is that if you want a successful small tank you need to live by stock limitations and not just go and buy everything you want. That's were larger tanks are nice as you can have much more variety and keep thing that get to large sizes. A person can easily do a nice small set up for fairly cheap but you can sink plenty of money into a small tank as well. So in my experience smaller is easier to maintain but also can be a bit tortursome when you are at the LFS.