Is bigger better when your a newbie setting up a fowlr?

R

RONALD123

AC Members
Sep 24, 2006
46
0
0
Ive been looking around and found a good deal on a 150 gal acrylic tank that i would use for my first fowlr setup..

My question is would it be ok for me to start off with such a large tank or should i just stick with my 65gal for now?

Also the tank im looking at is not drilled so would a 1200gph overflow be good enough?
The sump for the 150gal would be 65gal

thanks for your time
Ron
 
Well, if the 150 setup won't absolutely break the bank and your budget, I would go for it. I think you'd have better luck and be more pleased with it than the 65, especially when it comes to FOWLR. A lot of those bigger fish that limit other people would be entirely possible for you and your tank.
 
I have 3 tanks right now - a 75, 30 and 29. I've been in the hobby for 4ish years. I've also got a 240g coming to me. I wish I had started larger because I would have saved a few thousand dollars.

I've always told people that I've spoken with to get as large of a tank as they can reasonably afford and have the space for. I haven't yet had any of those people tell me that they wish they had gone smaller.
 
Totally depends on your budget....a 150G does offer more options.
 
Bigger=Better
(Again, -assuming- you can budget it)
The cost per gallon is lower the more water you have.

Plus, you are far less subject to fluctuations, and your fish have a better shot...


-However-.
The expense is just...wow...
 
I started with a 210 and had no experience with SW or FW before. My tank has been very stable for nearly a year....only thing I wish I would have done is built a sump right off....I could have put a 55 or 75 under the tank before I filled it. Now all I can squeeze under there is a 30.
I love my tank....only irritating part is the water changes:D.
I suppose the flip side to being very stable is that if something DOES go wrong it could take a while to remedy the problem.
I say go for the 150!
Robbie
 
I can't speak from the point of view of a person with more than a few days experience in saltwater. But I do know I stand starkly in contrast to the accepted bigger is better canon when it comes to freshwater. I've found smaller tanks to be far easier to keep, easier to maintenance, and yes (FLAME ME!) more stable.

Especially when you consider that saltwater requires the cost of salt, and also the chance you'll be using RO water...well the costs of a large system will add up exponentially.

But of course there are also differences with fresh and salt - most importantly in the creatures you can keep. Small saltwater tanks can only house a tiny select few inhabitants. But if you're happy just keeping maybe a royal gramma and a few inverts, smaller does well. Want to keep angels and tangs bust the bank and go with a tank as large as you can afford.
 
If you can afford it, then definately the bigger the better. Like Mandy, I started off with a small tank (30gal) went to a medium tank (60gal) and now I'm on my current one (182gal). I definately wish I'd started with the bigger one first. Not only does it save you money in the long run (not upgrading all the time) but it is definatley easier for maintaining water quality.
 
Riverserver said:
Bigger is always better, but don't get one so big you can't afford to take care of it.
Click to expand...


I have to say that is one very important point indeed.....and i am glad its been brought up....

All is well and good in buying our nice sparkling reef systems, some people throwing all the finances into them that they got....But, sometimes the on-going running cost are not always taken in to accounts....and, depending on finances, it could be a shortfall....Relative size, not financial size also relates to Riverserver's point ( unsure which of these two he was relating too here ).......

Just my thoughts...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom