Footprint versus Gallons

[chessman]

Sorry if this seems longwinded but here goes…

I am looking to set up two tanks on opposite ends of my living room. I already have a 90 gallon and was going to get another one to match it. However when enquiring about prices I noticed that the 75 has the same footprint as the 90, it is just not as tall.

Now I understand this is twisted logic but I could save about 80 dollars by buying 2-75 gallon tanks instead of 2-90 gallon tanks. Of course seeing as I already have a 90 I would only need to buy one but then I wouldn’t have a tank for my bedroom. I’ve read that for cichlids the footprint of the tank was more important than the actual amount of water it held. I was wondering if that held true for community fish as well.

In one I was hoping to put 12 Tiger Barbs, 10 Cories and 6 Zebra Danios. In the other I was thinking of 15 mollies, some ghost shrimp and perhaps some other livebearers (I haven’t sketched this one out as well). My question is would these fish work well in a 75 or is the extra depth of a 90 beneficial to them. Whichever tank I go with I’m planning to use one Aquaclear 500 and one Emperor 400 as filtration seeing as I got a good deal on about 5 of them a friend bought but didn’t use (half price, still in the box).

[DEmigh]

Originally posted by chessman
[...] I’ve read that for cichlids the footprint of the tank was more important than the actual amount of water it held.[...]

I recall reading something like this about cichlids too, back in my South American days (read the thread about Worst fish experiences? :rolleyes: )

I think the footprint is important to cichlid keepers because many cichlids are bottom huggers and seldom/never make use of the full height of the water column.

Many community fish are mid-water swimmers, and some community fish like to hang around near the surface. It would seem that one of the benefits of a mixed community aquarium would be the different habits of the included fish.

The height difference between a 75 and a 90 with identical footprints would only amount to one-fifth the height of the 75, so either one offers room for fish of many different depth habits. The 90 might offer advantages in terms of stability of water quality (due to increased volume).

I'm not familiar with the habits of the fish you have described in your stocking plans, if you are, or if you research it, perhaps that could help you make your decision.

[OrionGirl]

Actually, the 75 will be a bit better. The extra water in the 90 does really benefit you much, because there is no increase in surface area. Of gallons vrs surface area, surface area does more for fish health than gallons (within limits--100 gallons, 2 inches deep won't make up for much :) ).

I really like the 75's--they are one of my 'preferred' tank sizes.

[JSchmidt]

Either a 75 or a 90 would be good for the fish you cite, chessman. The 90, with it's extra volume, would allow for a bit less maintenance, but not in a substantial way.

I personally find the proportions of a 75 more pleasing than a 90, which looks too tall to me.

If it were my room, I'd go with the 75s.

Jim

[Uncle Bete]

I'm thing your gonna move the 90 to the bedroom and put the 2 - 75's in the same room.

for cichlids the 75 would work fine. like DEmigh said, most of'em a bottom hugger's.

as for the 90, put the tiger barb's etc. in it. You can get a good variety of bottom/mid/surface dwellers and have an awesome tank. Just think of it as a 75 when considering the bio-load.

[chessman]

Thanks for your replies. I think I'll go with the 75's. Since the tanks are a relatively expensive purchase and I had a good idea what I wanted in them I just wanted to make sure I wasn't starting out on the wrong foot.