AquaRank.com

FishProfiles.com Message Forums

faq | etiquette | register | my account | search | mailbox
# FishProfiles.com Message Forums
L# General
 L# Getting Started
  L# 37 gal long vs. 37 gal tall
 Post Reply  New Topic
Subscribe37 gal long vs. 37 gal tall
FishyNails
Small Fry
Posts: 1
Kudos: 1
Votes: 0
Registered: 06-Aug-2010
female usa us-kentucky
Hello everyone.

I like the look of the tall 37 gallon tanks that are square. But what are the disadvantages of this shape, verses the 37 gal long?
I was hoping to start a tropical tank with lots of fish in it. Can I still use the 1 inch per gallon rule?

Thanks for your advice!
FishyNails
Post InfoPosted 06-Aug-2010 19:58Profile PM Edit Report 
keithgh
 
---------------
---------------
*Ultimate Fish Guru*
Posts: 6371
Kudos: 6918
Votes: 1542
Registered: 26-Apr-2003
male australia au-victoria
I like the look of the tall 37 gallon tanks that are square. But what are the disadvantages of this shape, verses the 37 gal long?


Both of these tanks can give you problems if you are not very careful.
If you can measure the top surface area of those two tanks compared to a "standard" 37gal I think you will find that the "standard" tank has the greatest surface area.

This is extremely important reason being it is the surface area that involves the air movement of the tank also dictates how many fish you can have in a tank.

Deep tanks can have problems especially lighting, live plants and any maintenance work that has to be done on the substrate.


I was hoping to start a tropical tank with lots of fish in it. Can I still use the 1 inch per gallon rule?


Several huge mistakes here.
Starting of with (as you state "lots" will cause you more problems than you can cope with.
I very strongly you a lot of research about fish-keeping long before you even buy any thing.

Cycling a tank what do you know about that ?
Filtration???
Maintenance?
Getting the correct balance of every thing that goes into your tank.

Now for that ancient 1inch per gal it just not work at all.
It is the mass size of the fish that counts. I am sure there is no actual formula work out for that.

Here is a very simple example.

A Khuli loach looks like a 2+ins thick garden worm long and thin
Compare this to a 2+ins basic Platy. Both are the same length but that would be all they in common.

One very good point in your favour is have asked these questions first rather than like too many starting out and end up wondering what went wrong and why are all their fish dieing.

I also suggest you have a look at this site when you start putting your "Wants" together.

WWW.aqadvisor.com/

Keith

Near enough is not good enough, therefore good enough is not near enough, and only your best will do.
I VOTE DO YOU if not WHY NOT?
VOTE NOW http://www.aquarank.com/image.php?id=fishprof" border="0"> VOTE NOW
Post InfoPosted 07-Aug-2010 03:07Profile PM Edit Delete Report 
Shinigami
 
---------------
---------------
---------------
Ichthyophile
Catfish/Oddball Fan
Posts: 9962
Kudos: 2915
Registered: 22-Feb-2001
male usa us-delaware
If you want more fish, the rule is always a bigger footprint/surface area. And Keith is correct, the 1" per gallon rule is actually not any good at all.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.
Post InfoPosted 07-Aug-2010 18:09Profile PM Edit Delete Report 
FRANK
 
**********
---------------
---------------
Moderator
Posts: 5108
Kudos: 5263
Votes: 1690
Registered: 28-Dec-2002
male usa us-colorado
EditedEdited 08-Aug-2010 05:59
Hi,
Shortly after we had glass sided aquariums, they were
made with steel frames, and later stainless steel
frames, and slate bottoms.
Filters were the Hang On the Back (HOB) style and used a
medium similar to glass wool along with a chamber for
activated charcoal.

In those days the experts evolved the 1 inch per
gallon rule and it still hangs around today.
However, now we have a vastly larger array of
fish available than we did back then.
The biggest change has been the technology behind
our filtration. We can now easily keep many more,
and larger fish, than we could in the past and -
keep them alive to live long full lives.

The idea of the 1 inch of fish per gallon goes out the
window when, for instance, you look at a 6 inch Pencil
fish vs a 6 inch Oscar.
The pencil fish has a small body mass and is not
too much larger than a pencil. An Oscar however is a much
larger bodied fish, much more fuller, and heavier, and so
the end result is that the Oscar puts out far more
waste product (urea and stool) than the pencil fish
ever could.
The Oscar would turn a small tank into a cesspool
while the pencil fish would live quite happily.

Frank

-->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<--
Post InfoPosted 08-Aug-2010 05:56Profile PM Edit Delete Report 
Babelfish
 
**********
---------------
---------------
---------------
Administrator
Small Fry with Ketchup
Posts: 6833
Kudos: 8324
Votes: 1570
Registered: 17-Apr-2003
female australia us-maryland
Yep, what everyone else said

Personally I like the way long tanks look better than tall tanks.

People that want angel fish tend to keep them in taller tanks rather than long tanks, but then you're limited on how many fish you keep even more because of the lack of surface area/footprint.

For small tanks (anything under 55 gallons) IMO it's best to stick with smaller bodied fish. Adding a lot of live plants can help make a tank look 'full' and provide a more natural environment for the fish. If live plants are too hard, a mix of hardy low light plants with some good quality silk plants can work.


^_^

Post InfoPosted 09-Aug-2010 00:29Profile Homepage AIM MSN PM Edit Delete Report 
Post Reply  New Topic
Jump to: 

The views expressed on this page are the implied opinions of their respective authors.
Under no circumstances do the comments on this page represent the opinions of the staff of FishProfiles.com.

FishProfiles.com Forums, version 11.0
Mazeguy Smilies