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

Snaz · #1 10-10-2012, 05:09 PM

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 · #2 10-10-2012, 05:15 PM

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 · #3 10-10-2012, 05:16 PM

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 · #4 10-10-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #5 10-10-2012, 05:21 PM

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.

Enigma · #6 10-10-2012, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquattro

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 · #7 10-10-2012, 06:41 PM

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.

Psyire · #8 10-10-2012, 07:06 PM

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 · #9 10-10-2012, 07:08 PM

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.

sphelps · #10 10-10-2012, 06:52 PM

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

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".