what is the best dimensions for large fish?

[filly469075]

I am looking at getting a new tank and I was thinking about what is the best dimensions for large fish. It seems like a lot of people who have bigger fish have tanks that are like 6' long by 2' wide, however, when I have been to public aquariums (baltimore, virginia beach, camden) there aquariums are cylinders or large cubes. So would a deep-dimension tank, like 4' long by 3' wide better better than 6' long by 2' wide for large fish or at least just as good?

 

[username in use]

"large fish" is fairly ambiguous. What kind of fish are you thinking about in particular? They can have different needs, and the ideal tank shape could change depending.

 

[sps1206]

I agree. If you want to get a tang, for example, then your 6' x 2' dimension would be ideal. What specific types of large fish are you currently considering?

 

[skibum9884]

It does depend on what you want. 6' x 2' is still a bit small for most of the larger tangs (nasos, etc), but if you're interested in Acanthurus tangs and others I'd go with the 6x2. If you're talking angelfish or a bunch of Anthias, I think the 4' x 3' would make for a more interesting display.

 

[filly469075]

while I have a purple tang and hippo tank, now in a 120. my question is still way is the 6x2 better than 4x3, if the rockwork is now right (so that the fish can swim around and around the rocks)?
the other reason for the 4x3 is that this is the size that I can upgrade to so that the tank can fix in the room.

 

[username in use]

well, the easy way to look at it is

6+6+2+2=16
4+4+3+3=14

so without even factoring in height, the longer tank has 2 linear feet of swimming space. Obviously there are other considerations, but that gives you an idea.

 

[Jhockey]

What kind of formula is that? You want to look at footprint if your not factoring in height, that is what is most important. 6x2 and 4x3 have the same footprint, 12 square feet.

 

[snorvich]

What kind of formula is that? You want to look at footprint if your not factoring in height, that is what is most important. 6x2 and 4x3 have the same footprint, 12 square feet.

I have to disagree that footprint is the most relevant. For tangs, length is the most relevant so 6x2 is better than 4x3 and 8x2 is even better.

 

[jaa1456]

well, the easy way to look at it is

6+6+2+2=16
4+4+3+3=14

so without even factoring in height, the longer tank has 2 linear feet of swimming space. Obviously there are other considerations, but that gives you an idea.

What is that??? They both have 12Sq feet of swimming space. But yes for tangs longer would be better. Maybe a 265 that is 8' in length.

 

[username in use]

What kind of formula is that? You want to look at footprint if your not factoring in height, that is what is most important. 6x2 and 4x3 have the same footprint, 12 square feet.

a 3.5ft cube has 12 square ft too, a little over actually, but we can all agree that you wouldn't put a couple large tangs in there.

 

[dzfish17]

Get the biggest tank you can afford and have the room for. Like someone said an 8' long tank is perfect. If you have the space a 240g (96x24x24) is just about right. Even better would be a 540g (96x36x36). A wide tank makes it easier to aquascape. Just keep in mind that a bigger tank means more money (more salt,food,equipment,energy,ect).

Dave

 

[JHemdal]

I agree with Snorvich - when I look at swimming space for fish, I consider only open water areas, and then look at it as an "L" - length plus width. Water depth is inconsequential in that I've never seen an aquarium that was too shallow - the human aesthetics typically don't allow for that. Besides, if you calculate LxWxH you are now looking at VOLUME, and this cannot be compared to a fish's linear measurement.

You can try this yourself be comparing the length of a 2" clownfish in a 20 gallon tank 2" : 3456 cubic inches = 1" per 1728 cu in. to a 20 foot whale shark in a 200,000 gallon tank that works out to be 1" in 19,2500 cubic inches. On paper, the whale shark has 111 times more room, but in reality, it could not even survive in a 200,000 gallon tank, yet the clownfish is perfectly comfortable!

Jay

 

[snorvich]

I agree with Snorvich - when I look at swimming space for fish, I consider only open water areas, and then look at it as an "L" - length plus width. Water depth is inconsequential in that I've never seen an aquarium that was too shallow - the human aesthetics typically don't allow for that. Besides, if you calculate LxWxH you are now looking at VOLUME, and this cannot be compared to a fish's linear measurement.

You can try this yourself be comparing the length of a 2" clownfish in a 20 gallon tank 2" : 3456 cubic inches = 1" per 1728 cu in. to a 20 foot whale shark in a 200,000 gallon tank that works out to be 1" in 19,2500 cubic inches. On paper, the whale shark has 111 times more room, but in reality, it could not even survive in a 200,000 gallon tank, yet the clownfish is perfectly comfortable!

Jay

A good way of looking at this issue.

 

[Jhockey]

a 3.5ft cube has 12 square ft too, a little over actually, but we can all agree that you wouldn't put a couple large tangs in there.

A 12sqft circle has a circumference over over 12 feet, which is a lot better then a 6x2 tank.

Length is most important, but width is definitely important as well
You can have all the length you want, but without proper width it's pointless. I'd rather have an 8x3 tank then 12x2. If your keeping large tangs like nasos, at 2ft they can't even turn around!

IMO the best tank dimensions are the ones with the longest dimension to where a fish can travel without turning around, yet still providing ample room to turn around if need be. I think circle tanks would be best, yet they aren't practical due to expenses. Cube tanks yield very similar results, but who has room for such depth.

Jay, very good points. I think it all boils down to what fish you are keeping and its needs.

 

[namxas]

Yeppers...it really depends on the fish in question and its swimming habits.

For instance, our adult P. volitans does much better in a 100 gal "wide" (48" x 24" x 20") than it would fare in a standard 100 gal (72" x 18" x 19"), due to the added "turnaround" room and the fact that lions aren't "pacers". However a yellow tang would do better in the 6' tank.