FishProfiles.com Message Forums |
faq | etiquette | register | my account | search | mailbox |
Which tank? | |
Brengun Big Fish Posts: 355 Kudos: 187 Votes: 110 Registered: 22-Jun-2007 | 36" x 24" x 24" holds close to 90 gal whereas a 48" x 18" x 24" holds the same water. The 36" costs $165 but the 48" costs $189. Both tanks are the same height, only the length/width parts differ. Does this make any difference to fish. Are they just as happy with a shorter tank with plenty of width to hide in the back, or do you think they would prefer a longer but narrower tank? I have a stand for a 36" tank so I am biased. I want to know more what the fish would prefer. |
Posted 20-Jan-2008 06:44 | |
superlion Mega Fish Posts: 1246 Kudos: 673 Votes: 339 Registered: 27-Sep-2003 | They both have the same amount of surface area also. (864 sq. in.) The question to ask is, what size fish would you keep in it? If you want larger fish, the 36" tank gives them more room to turn around. For smaller fish, I don't think it really matters. Another consideration would be aquascaping and what type of aquascaping the aquarist wants to do, and which one would be best for that. ><> |
Posted 20-Jan-2008 07:06 | |
brandeeno Mega Fish Posts: 929 Kudos: 636 Registered: 13-Sep-2007 | since i know you are into cories and smaler fish and you already have a stand for it go for the 36''.. it would be much more benficial to you and all of your new cory fry will love the space... but it all depends on what you WANT and what you can afford... \\\\\\\"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure\\\\\\\" |
Posted 20-Jan-2008 07:21 | |
ScottF Fish Addict Addiction Hurts!! Posts: 542 Kudos: 330 Votes: 355 Registered: 28-May-2007 | to me, I would think that it would be better to have the tank with more front to back space, more depth for plants, hiding, aquascape, etc. And of course, there is the cost and the fact that you have the stand already... so, I guess my vote goes with the 36" tank :-) |
Posted 20-Jan-2008 15:27 | |
RickyM Enthusiast Posts: 175 Kudos: 101 Votes: 62 Registered: 12-Oct-2006 | If you plan to keep some medium size shoaling fish (large tetras / rainbows), 48" will give them more length to swim in school and look nicer. |
Posted 20-Jan-2008 17:06 | |
FRANK Moderator Posts: 5108 Kudos: 5263 Votes: 1690 Registered: 28-Dec-2002 | Hi, I'd go with the longer tank as well. Unless the fish being housed in the tank are "up and down" fish, I'd give them more room to swim from end to end in. Frank -->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<-- |
Posted 20-Jan-2008 18:42 | |
Brengun Big Fish Posts: 355 Kudos: 187 Votes: 110 Registered: 22-Jun-2007 | The fish would be fish I already have which will be requiring their own 'space'. I have 3 eupterus upsidedown cats who may become territorial, so just one 3ft tank (which I already have) may not be just enough. My elephant nose will also want to come out of the quiet 2ft tank sometime but my current 3ft community tank of clown loaches, gouramis and angels may not suit him. Most of my fish are fine with the tanks they have atm. I am just thinking of the future. If those 4 rotten clowns don't stop uprooting and eating my plants, they will be going on a one way trip to the lfs. It wouldn't be the one SAE doing it surely? |
Posted 21-Jan-2008 03:05 | |
divertran Fish Addict Posts: 784 Kudos: 469 Votes: 165 Registered: 14-Nov-2004 | I think it all depends on the needs of the fish yo intend to keep in it. Personally, I'd choose the longer one. Fish always seem to like some swimmin room. |
Posted 22-Jan-2008 01:16 |
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