How important is tank length for fish.

[jt481]

I am in the planning stages for a new reef tank. I am considering the AGA 180 which is 72x24x24 or the Oceanic 178 which is 60.5x24.5x29.

I know the longer tank has more surface area which increases gas exchange. I know the deeper tank may require stronger lighting.

But both tanks are very close to volume. Which would be better for larger fish such as a Hippo or PB Tang? Does it matter?

Any advice or experience would be greatly appreciated. Has anyone had a fish in both tanks and asked what they prefer?

 

[Anonymous]

If a tank has longer perimeter, it will enable the fish to swim slightly longer before they need to turn around, assume the tank is empty.

It really don't make much difference with 6 inches, since how you going to do the rockwork going to affect how much actual room it going to have to swim. You may also increase the flow/current in the tank to give them longer appearant lenght.

 

[rbursek]

Wider looks better. learned that from my friends 180 to my 125, 4ft wide!!!
Bob

 

[jt481]

It really don't make much difference with 6 inches

dupaboy1992-You mean 12 inches? 72-60=12, not 6. I am not here to point out mistakes, just making sure I know what you mean.

 

[Anonymous]

Area/footprint is the vital consideration. In this case the 180 is the easy choice.

The 178 trades a bit of footprint for height, which isn't going to do you any good, especially with a tang.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, ~12 inches. I like it when people points out my mistakes. Thanx.

 

[shred5]

For those two sizes it does not make a differenceb ut I would get the 72x24x24 if it were me.

As for sizes of tanks for fish it goes like this. Some fish require more swimming room than others and it has very little to do with the size of the fish, it has more to do with the type. Some large fish can be in small aqauriums and some small fish required larger tanks.


Dave

 

[Anonymous]

I like a 6' tank over a 5' tank simply because 3 halides work over the 6'. depending on bracing on the 5' tank, you might only be able to put 2 lights on it. then you either have dark edges, or a dark spot in the middle.

B

 

[jt481]

Yes I agree with everyone, but my cheap side says I can probably get away with 2 MH bulbs instead of 3. But....shadows may be an issue and why cut corners on something so important. Besides, the Oceanic 5 foot will cost alot more than the AGA 6 foot.

 

[Anonymous]

For those two sizes it does not make a differenceb ut I would get the 72x24x24 if it were me.

Wrong.
It's an entire 12", and we're not talking about a 20' vs 21' tank. Between 5' and 6', the difference is huge.
Again, it's footprint/swimming area that is the concern. The little bit of extra height the 5' tank provides does us no good.

 

[shred5]

For those two sizes it does not make a differenceb ut I would get the 72x24x24 if it were me.

Wrong.
It's an entire 12", and we're not talking about a 20' vs 21' tank. Between 5' and 6', the difference is huge.
Again, it's footprint/swimming area that is the concern. The little bit of extra height the 5' tank provides does us no good.

12" is not the big of a deal comparied to the ocean where he came from, it is still going to feel like it is kept in a small box.. He also gains some verticle swimming room going the other way, Sq. footage is the same. Tangs do not do well with less than 4' of swimming room and some require more. I do agree with bingo a 6' tank is easier to light. He could go 400 mh and raise the lights up some to get the additional coverage too on the 5' tank even though I do not like this option. Could also put lower light corals on the edge.

Dave

 

[Anonymous]

12" is not the big of a deal comparied to the ocean where he came from, it is still going to feel like it is kept in a small box.. He also gains some verticle swimming room going the other way, Sq. footage is the same. Tangs do not do well with less than 4' of swimming room and some require more. I do agree with bingo a 6' tank is easier to light. He could go 400 mh and raise the lights up some to get the additional coverage too on the 5' tank even though I do not like this option. Could also put lower light corals on the edge.

Dave

50' isn't big compared to Ocean either, but it's our job to give the fish as close to ideal conditions as we're capable. I'm not trying to split hares or be needlessly contentious, but when dealing dimensions that are already very small, 12" becomes very important, especially with this family. Further, if you're stating that 4' is the absolute minimum, why would 5' then be ideal? No, 6' is much better, and longer still is ideal if it can be managed.

The vertical dimension as I said is not critical here, much better to gain the length.

 

[Anonymous]

12 is 20% of 60 inch, and IMHO, it is significant.

 

[shred5]

12" is not the big of a deal comparied to the ocean where he came from, it is still going to feel like it is kept in a small box.. He also gains some verticle swimming room going the other way, Sq. footage is the same. Tangs do not do well with less than 4' of swimming room and some require more. I do agree with bingo a 6' tank is easier to light. He could go 400 mh and raise the lights up some to get the additional coverage too on the 5' tank even though I do not like this option. Could also put lower light corals on the edge.

Dave

50' isn't big compared to Ocean either, but it's our job to give the fish as close to ideal conditions as we're capable. I'm not trying to split hares or be needlessly contentious, but when dealing dimensions that are already very small, 12" becomes very important, especially with this family. Further, if you're stating that 4' is the absolute minimum, why would 5' then be ideal? No, 6' is much better, and longer still is ideal if it can be managed.

The vertical dimension as I said is not critical here, much better to gain the length.

It is still the same square footage. So is it ok to give them a 10' long tank and only 6" of water? or its ok to give them 10' foot tank with a width of 6"?... Fish do not swim in only one direction like north and south. Width and height are important too. Do fish go up and down? Fish do not only live in only 18 inches of water feet of water. The square footage of both tanks is almost exactly the same. Niether tank is skewed in one direction like some of the stupid designer tanks where is is 10' high and 1 foot wide. Both tanks are fine.

To me after you hit the 4' length the next important dimention is width till you hit 4' and then hieght till you hit 32". I say 32 inches because over that is really impractible for a reef/fish tank.

Dave

 

[mr_X]

i'd get the 6' tank. more room for aquascaping. and i think they just look better. i think the upward area of that oceanic you mentioned is just wasted space.
ultimately, we don't have any "fish whisperers" here, so this is all opinion. get what you like. you're going to have to live with it, not us :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

12" is not the big of a deal comparied to the ocean where he came from, it is still going to feel like it is kept in a small box.. He also gains some verticle swimming room going the other way, Sq. footage is the same. Tangs do not do well with less than 4' of swimming room and some require more. I do agree with bingo a 6' tank is easier to light. He could go 400 mh and raise the lights up some to get the additional coverage too on the 5' tank even though I do not like this option. Could also put lower light corals on the edge.

Dave

50' isn't big compared to Ocean either, but it's our job to give the fish as close to ideal conditions as we're capable. I'm not trying to split hares or be needlessly contentious, but when dealing dimensions that are already very small, 12" becomes very important, especially with this family. Further, if you're stating that 4' is the absolute minimum, why would 5' then be ideal? No, 6' is much better, and longer still is ideal if it can be managed.

The vertical dimension as I said is not critical here, much better to gain the length.

It is still the same square footage. So is it ok to give them a 10' long tank and only 6" of water? or its ok to give them 10' foot tank with a width of 6"?... Fish do not swim in only one direction like north and south. Width and height are important too. Do fish go up and down? Fish do not only live in only 18 inches of water feet of water. The square footage of both tanks is almost exactly the same. Niether tank is skewed in one direction like some of the stupid designer tanks where is is 10' high and 1 foot wide. Both tanks are fine.

To me after you hit the 4' length the next important dimention is width till you hit 4' and then hieght till you hit 32". I say 32 inches because over that is really impractible for a reef/fish tank.

Dave

First of all Dave, let me apologize for logging in as two separate user names. My intention is to reserve the other one for posting down below, but I invariably forget and post both places under both names. :roll:

Second, while this subject is a "matter of opinion" to a certain extent, that extent is finite. Any 4' long tank housing an acanthurid should be at least 24" wide anyway, the smaller Zebrasoma species being a possible exception to this.

The two species we are discussing here are extremely sensitive and fragile, to the extent that it can be argued that both should be left in the ocean. I spent years in the past working at the wholesale/retail level, and the mortality rate on both of these species is staggering. The acclimate poorly, and ANY measure that can be taken to ease their transition into captivity should be taken advantage of by the aquarist.

These tanks are not the same square footage, (footprint) although cubic footage is similar. We can of course take things to a ridiculous extent and talk about a 20' long tank at a height of 2", etc, but let's just assume all my comments are with regard to the tank having a reasonable height between 20 and 30" At the end of the day, you're right, both tanks are "fine", and we're very much on the line here with regard to saying either one is better. If we were discussing trigger fish, moray eels or wrasses, then I wouldn't even have chimed in here.

To these delicate surge dwelling species however, space is most critical, (after quarantine, proper acclimation and introduction, feeding regime) ...that means horizontal space so long of course as the vertical space is reasonable, which it always is on tanks this size. What can't be argued is that fooprint/real estate is of primary importance, and at 72x24x24 the 180 gallon tank has a larger footprint, width x depth (not height) and 24" is a nice height for any tank as it lends enough vertical space for any fish, yet is easy to maintain...and a nice healthy width as well. As pointed out above, the percentage of difference we're talking about here is not insignificant. If we were discussing a 10' tank vs a 12' tank then this debate gets very silly, very fast.

As I said, I admit we're on the line, but there is a correct side of the line in this circumstance, for these particular fish IMO. If we were to switch the hight and depth dimensions of the smaller tank, then we're definitely in same/same territory more or less.



Anyway, glad to see you here and participating. Good on ya, this board needs it.


Jim