I used to keep piranhas and the key, for those fish at least, was not necessary how many gallons the tank was, but rather length x width (amazonians like long and wide, with the height not being that important). Is the same true for salt water fishes. I wanted to get a smaller tank with a relatively large swimming area, so I got a 60g (48 x 15). I recognize one of the greatest benefits of a large volume tank is decreased variability in water parameters, but putting that aside, why else is volume important? Im not suggesting that I'm going to put tangs in my 60g (appeasing the tang PD), but what about keeping fishes that generally like a 90g tank (which I think has a 48 x 18 footprint)?
Is tank volume as important as the footprint for housing fish
- Thread starter freecard
- Start date
Wolverine
Premium Member
It depends on what fish you're talking about and what their swimming patterns are. In general, I agree with your point. The main advantage (and it's not an insignificant one) to a large tank is the stability issue, all other things being equal. I also agree that the footprint is extremely important. I think a 40g breeder is a much better thank that a 40g extra-high, which is basically shaped like a poster. One thing that I think most people neglect (I know I used to) is the width of the tank. Greater width gives you a lot more options in aquascaping, which can give the fish more apparent room as it moves around and through things.
Dave
Dave
Angel*Fish
cats and large squashes
I'm living thru this right now - I have a 100g g 5' long tank And I have my rocks freestanding - but in most areas that doesn't give the fish much space between the rocks and the glass.
My jawfish only has about a 10 x 10 area & my little garden eel is having to make do (I believed LFS about care requirements on the GE wo looking up myself first)
I plan to upgrade to 210 wo adding any rocks or fish
