small alien
The fungus is among us.
Looking at the dimensions of a 120, I might just do that! I think tanks with the same height and depth look best. Thanks for your input Amay121. Keep it real, small
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15047658#post15047658 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by small alien
Thanks for that thought and the lighting info. As I contemplate my options and inch up and up in size, I'm starting to worry a little about maintenance costs, particularly electricity. Anyone have any thoughts about running a 75 vs. 120 in terms of over-all maintenance costs? Salt, bulbs (t5HO), electricity, food, stocking, etc. If I go 24" high, I do think I'm going 24" deep as well as I really love that chunky look and the way you can work with the space. My original idea was to do a 50 and here's where I've found myself.I need guidance.
Thanks, smalls
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15050776#post15050776 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DarG
If you have the room, Id do the 120 over the 90 in a heartbeat. Initial costs would be a bit higher perhaps but water changes wouldnt be signifigantly higher.
My future upgrade will be a 24" deep (front to back) tank ... either 6 feet or 8 feet long. But it will be an inwall so I may look for a 20" tall tank for maint./accessibility reasons ... or have one custom built.
We contemplated a 120 when we got the 90 but the 90 replaced a custom built tank in a fish room and was the same footprint. Just didnt have the room for the extra 6" width in the tiny fish room. But I would have done it if at all possible. Glad I didnt now with the upgrade in the plans but IMO that extra depth can make for a nicer tank.