Which tank works better for the fishes?

[yhbae]

Here are the choices:

Tank 1 has the base measurement of 48x12.
Tank 2 has the base measurement of 36x18.

Which tank is better for the fishes? I'm looking to buy two of these, one for SA species, and the other for Malawi sepcies, hence most likely I will not be adding any fishes that exceed more than 5-6 inches or so in the worst case.

Appreciate any feedback!

[jeffro426]

I would say the 48x12...thats how big my 55 is and my Mbuna seem too be quite happy in it.

[slipknottin]

Personally Id rather have the tank with more depth, far easier to aquascape. Im not a fan of 55s.

[Leopardess]

I've always heard that length is the most important factor for the fish since they like to swim lengthwise rather than up/down or something like that. Longer tank means more open swimming space in a straight line.

[zin]

Personally i wish i got a 75 or a 90gallon, in place of my 55, depth makes a tank so much better imo. i love my 150 fish can swim in any way they choose. In the 55 some of the fish just seem bored

[yhbae]

Note that 48*12 = 576, and 36*18=648, hence the shorter one has HIGHER surface area hence should accomodate more livestock, but this is only a theory with no other factor taken into account...

I guess most likely, if it is a show tank, then 48 is better. If this is a breeder tank, then 36 will come out winning... Correct?

That leads me to the next question - which tank will allow you to stock more, for both aggressive and non-aggressive species?

[vaheelsfan]

I have always read that if you have to choose between two tanks that have equal water capacity, get the one that has the most surface area. I believe that this is because it makes for a better exchange between the gasses in the water and air. This is why a twenty gallon long is supposedly better for fish than a twenty gallon high. The post about fish having more room to swim makes sense, too. Plus, since larger surface area of the water translates into larger surface area on the bottom of the aquarium, I would think the aquarium with more surface area would be better for territorial fishes.

[yhbae]

Originally posted by vaheelsfan
I have always read that if you have to choose between two tanks that have equal water capacity, get the one that has the most surface area. I believe that this is because it makes for a better exchange between the gasses in the water and air. This is why a twenty gallon long is supposedly better for fish than a twenty gallon high. The post about fish having more room to swim makes sense, too. Plus, since larger surface area of the water translates into larger surface area on the bottom of the aquarium, I would think the aquarium with more surface area would be better for territorial fishes.

That was my expected reply from everyone, but so far my findings are suprising (at least to me). Most experienced aquarists seem to prefer the longer tank despite smaller surface area. I guess at the end, the distance between two opposite corners is more important than the surface area, at least for (semi)aggressive species.

I'd love to see someone prove this wrong, since I only have room for 6ft in my living room, and I want two tanks in there... :D But if 36x18 isn't going to make that much difference compare to 36x12, I might as well save some cost and go with 36x12...

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by Leopardess
I've always heard that length is the most important factor for the fish since they like to swim lengthwise rather than up/down or something like that. Longer tank means more open swimming space in a straight line.

I meant more width, or length, or from the front to the back. Whatever you want to call it. Not depth as in from the top to the bottom. :laugh:

[Mark_b]

To be honest i don't think it will matter a lot - go for what fits in your room better!
I would definitely go for the 36" by 18" though over the 36" by 12". Especially if the price difference isn't much! The extra space will be very useful as someone mentioned for any aquascaping.
I can guarantee that you'll regret it in the future if you go for the smaller tanks!

Nice idea with the two three footers next to each other - that'll look spot on!

[Leopardess]

LOl slipknott...I know what you meant. I simply meant that I've heard fish prefer length to anything else. My comment was in reference to a tank of the same size - I'd chose the long one over the thicker one...despite the surface area thing. I think its a personal thing. i'm sure the difference is miniscule.

[Hans]

id like a tank that went about 4 feet back, thad be cool

[RTR]

It would depend on how the tank was to be used. I have both 55s(48"x12/13) and 65s(36x18") and for planted use, the 65s are far better, easier, and finish off looking more polished. For mbuna with lots of rockwork and the importance of sightlines for territoriality, I'd take the 55s. Neither is "better" as such other than for specific use, and dark ages considerations like surface area only matter for really bizarre shapes (the tower tubes, hexes, etc.) IMHO.

Extreme depth (front to back, as slipknottin said - that is the standard, if awkward, term for front-to-back measure), like extreme height, I find too difficult to work in. At and beyond 24" deep, I want access from both front and back). I will not have a tank over 24" high (and I am 6'3' with long arms).

[SayersWeb]

I think it depends on the fish you are planning to have. I like the width (front to back) of the tank to be as close to double the longest fish as possible. In your example, if the fish will not get much over 6" then the 12" wide tank would be preferred. If the fish get much over 6" then I would go for the wider but shorter tank.

I'm not a big fan of the 55 gallon tank, even though I just added two of them to my collection. I think 12.5" is too narrow once you put some plants/rocks/driftwood in the tank. Also, the HOB type filters seem to roll the surface a little too much due to the narrow width. I have a 60 gallon that is a bit shorter (height) than the 55 (17" instead of 20") and wider (15" instead of 12.5") which seems to offer a much more useable tank area.

I agree that a tank deeper (height) or wider (front to back) than 24" is very difficult to work in.

[Sensei_the_dojo]

Originally posted by Leopardess
LOl slipknott...I know what you meant. I simply meant that I've heard fish prefer length to anything else. My comment was in reference to a tank of the same size - I'd chose the long one over the thicker one...despite the surface area thing. I think its a personal thing. i'm sure the difference is miniscule.
Yeah, I've heard that the size of the ummm _tank_ doesn't matter, it's all in how you use it. ;)