# Start Small Or Big?



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

I am not sure if it's just me due my my living space or not but I find that a lot of beginners begin BIG. What I mean is that people (as I can see) often first get a ten gallon tank then a month later, they will get a 140...
That just doesn't sound that right to me...A tank is a really tiny part of the hobby. One needs lights, CO2 system, substrate, hardscapes, filter, filter media...tons of stuff.
I don't really think that it's the right way for people to explore this hobby. Situations like this stop people from quitting. As a result, one just falls into a huge black hole: invest, invest and invest non-stop.
This mindset of big is good doesn't apply to this hobby...at least in the first place. Look at it in another way, a so-called nano tank actually takes much more care (though construction works are smaller) and skills...You lose less if there is an algae bloom. If your tank is not well-cycled, you lose around ten fish...
I find that some actually feel ashamed of having a "nano tank"... Well...that might be too much but some do think that those who have nano tanks aren't really serious about this hobby...

My main concern really is costs. What I think is that many people actually underestimated the costs of this hobby. It's cheap to get a gigantic tank but it's much more costly to maintain it. It's not about whether or not someone has a lot of money...it's about how we should plan.

What do you guys think?

EDIT: I am unsure why this thread offends someone. This is certainly not my purpose. I do not mean to argue against anyone. I am sorry if I have ever offended anyone.


----------



## Craigthor (Sep 9, 2007)

I like big but have kept tanks of all sizes over the years going big has lots of advantages as well.

More stable water parameters
Larger scaping foot print
Allows the use of bigger plants
Can create super complexx scapes without the look of being crowded

Have a gander at my 220g setup if you would like some inspiration for going big. 

Craig


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

Definitely true! Big tanks do provide much much more stable water parameters. But what I am saying is that in the beginning, people can actually kinda "master" the skills of stabilizing water parameters by keeping smaller tanks. That's why I said small tanks require better skills.

What I try to say is how people might want to START this hobby. How can beginners create super complex scapes? We all WANT TO but we should accumulate skills from smaller tanks first...

That's just what I think...And in fact, I am not one of those really skilled hobbyists...I have been in this hobby for just half year...I would never try to go big with my current skill level...

From time to time, I encountered challenges and for so many times I thank God for having a nano tank instead of a giant one...



Craigthor said:


> I like big but have kept tanks of all sizes over the years going big has lots of advantages as well.
> 
> More stable water parameters
> Larger scaping foot print
> ...


----------



## Walleye (May 14, 2012)

I think some people are drawn to smaller tanks for various reasons and other people are drawn to larger tanks for various reasons.

I don't think the hobby would be very enjoyable if you had to follow it exactly the way someone else thinks you should.


----------



## smokaah (Nov 30, 2011)

Some of the nano tanks I see online are way more impressive in terms of scraping. More intricate etc.


----------



## ony (Apr 1, 2011)

tricity said:


> I am not sure if it's just me due my my living space or not but I find that a lot of beginners begin BIG. What I mean is that people (as I can see) often first get a ten gallon tank then a month later, they will get a 140...
> That just doesn't sound that right to me...A tank is a really tiny part of the hobby. One needs lights, CO2 system, substrate, hardscapes, filter, filter media...tons of stuff.
> I don't really think that it's the right way for people to explore this hobby. Situations like this stop people from quitting. As a result, one just falls into a huge black hole: invest, invest and invest non-stop.
> This mindset of big is good doesn't apply to this hobby...at least in the first place. Look at it in another way, a so-called nano tank actually takes much more care (though construction works are smaller) and skills...You lose less if there is an algae bloom. If your tank is not well-cycled, you lose around ten fish...
> ...


I think many hobbyists upgrade straight away is because they have been grossly misinformed about the requirements of their fish. How many people are assured that 5 goldfish will be fine in a baby biorb and are very upset when they learn otherwise?

That aside, I think the flaw to this argument is your assumption that planted tanks are high tech. There is no need to spend tons of money on high end equipment unless you want to. If you want to spend money then you can do it just as easily on a sexy ADA nano. A 350l tank with T5's and an extra canister filter would only be £400 new off [Ebay Link Removed] Less than half that second hand. Once you have that there is no _need_ to buy more equipment.

If I were advising a new aquarist I would recommend them to get a big-ish tank. The bigger the tank, the more stable it will be. There is no need to put 10 fish into a tiny glass death-box that you don't have the skills to maintain. Those 10 fish would be safe and sound in a larger tank and ready for new friends once your little mistake had sorted itself out.


I love my nano but its much less forgiving than the big tank.


----------



## HybridHerp (May 24, 2012)

Honestly, I personally feel like it is better to start bigger. I feel like most people start with just fish keeping, then move onto plants, and if they are like me then that means they probably started off with a larger tank that was originally just meant for fish, and then they are converting what they already have.
Quiet honestly, I would feel like my recommendation for the planted tank enthusiast would be to start low tech with a bigger tank, and then gradually get smaller and smaller tanks that are higher and higher tech. Because quiet frankly, I am afraid to touch anything smaller than a 10 gallon and expect it to be nice lol
I feel like nano tanks are more advanced than say, 300 gallon tanks and other absurdly large tanks. The only "hard" thing about larger tanks is making sure you can get enough lighting, and even then its only a game of how much money can you pour into the tank? And I really don't feel like being able to blow more money on something makes it harder, it just makes your pockets thinner


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

Sounds right!
Just to add thing, I am not implying high-tech tank. Even if you just spend money on plants AND fish, a bigger tank is going to cost you much more money. Bigger tanks mean longer lights, and larger filters (i am just talking about sizes, not quality). And 400 pounds!? You think that's not a lot? I am talking about starter costs. 
It's definitely true that water parameters in bigger tanks are much more stable. And that's why I said smaller tanks provide us chances of learning how to stabilize water parameters better.

Algae boom is kinda common among beginners; there are quite a lot of such examples on this forum. And those who had huge tanks suffered from horrible losses...That's basically my main concern. This thread is not an argument against anyone, I just want to make it clear.

Thanks for you input!



ony said:


> I think many hobbyists upgrade straight away is because they have been grossly misinformed about the requirements of their fish. How many people are assured that 5 goldfish will be fine in a baby biorb and are very upset when they learn otherwise?
> 
> That aside, I think the flaw to this argument is your assumption that planted tanks are high tech. There is no need to spend tons of money on high end equipment unless you want to. If you want to spend money then you can do it just as easily on a sexy ADA nano. A 350l tank with T5's and an extra canister filter would only be £400 new off [Ebay Link Removed] Less than half that second hand. Once you have that there is no _need_ to buy more equipment.
> 
> ...


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

The sole reason why I think we should begin with smaller tanks is because of money!



HybridHerp said:


> Honestly, I personally feel like it is better to start bigger. I feel like most people start with just fish keeping, then move onto plants, and if they are like me then that means they probably started off with a larger tank that was originally just meant for fish, and then they are converting what they already have.
> Quiet honestly, I would feel like my recommendation for the planted tank enthusiast would be to start low tech with a bigger tank, and then gradually get smaller and smaller tanks that are higher and higher tech. Because quiet frankly, I am afraid to touch anything smaller than a 10 gallon and expect it to be nice lol
> I feel like nano tanks are more advanced than say, 300 gallon tanks and other absurdly large tanks. The only "hard" thing about larger tanks is making sure you can get enough lighting, and even then its only a game of how much money can you pour into the tank? And I really don't feel like being able to blow more money on something makes it harder, it just makes your pockets thinner


----------



## vincenz (Jan 29, 2012)

For an absolute beginner, I would suggest a small tank. If you don't like the hobby, it's much easier to get rid of it. You don't want to drop 2 grand setting up a 100g tank, then decide two months later that the maintenance is too much for you.


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

I am not suggesting that anyone SHOULD do anything. 



Walleye said:


> I think some people are drawn to smaller tanks for various reasons and other people are drawn to larger tanks for various reasons.
> 
> I don't think the hobby would be very enjoyable if you had to follow it exactly the way someone else thinks you should.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

I think a good starting point is around a 30 gallon. Big enough for some stability and a few fish, small enough to afford and convince the rents or the wife or the hubby to allow, evaporation doesn't drain it in a day. 

The biggest mistake I see is too much lighting. The next is too few water changes. 

It's ironic that people have issues and bump up the lighting, when the lightin is usually the issue in the firs place. Co2 is all too often the trick of the trade.


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

I myself think that a 30 gallon one is a big one...



jcgd said:


> I think a good starting point is around a 30 gallon. Big enough for some stability and a few fish, small enough to afford and convince the rents or the wife or the hubby to allow, evaporation doesn't drain it in a day.
> 
> The biggest mistake I see is too much lighting. The next is too few water changes.
> 
> It's ironic that people have issues and bump up the lighting, when the lightin is usually the issue in the firs place. Co2 is all too often the trick of the trade.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

I consider a 30 a nano. 40- 100 gal, medium and 100+ large. 

Anything 10 or under is a real challenge. Even something like requiring airline tubing for maintanence draining. Using a tube with any suction power and the tank is empty in two minutes. 

Below 20 gallons and you need experience to keep everything in pristine condition. Above 75 you need the time and energy to keep up.


----------



## Fishies_in_Philly (Dec 8, 2011)

One could also take the position that with starting with smaller tanks and smaller margin of error can cause enough frustration for a beginner to keep their interest piqued. I have seen many people quit the hobby because they just could not keep parameters in their "small" tanks stable. 
My opinion on the whole subject is that every individual is just that, an individual who can make their own decision based on their own experience and $$.


----------



## neueklare_ein (Jan 25, 2012)

I don't really see how it's tough to keep water conditions acceptable in a 10 gallon tank...It's hard, not because of the size of a tank but because of the lack of common sense in science...Some people just don't have a clue!

Patience is another thing...



jcgd said:


> I consider a 30 a nano. 40- 100 gal, medium and 100+ large.
> 
> Anything 10 or under is a real challenge. Even something like requiring airline tubing for maintanence draining. Using a tube with any suction power and the tank is empty in two minutes.
> 
> Below 20 gallons and you need experience to keep everything in pristine condition. Above 75 you need the time and energy to keep up.


----------



## xgteen (Mar 7, 2012)

How much are people willing to spend on this hobby?

It's a hobby; it shouldn't be transformed into a burden. I find that some people just pursue what they want regardless of the costs...

DO AFFORDABLE STUFF...!!!


----------



## green_valley (Sep 14, 2011)

This is very interesting, that OP mentioned ppl start 10g, then 140g. 

That's actually me. I didn't have any problem at all. You do what you wish base on your knowledge. No one is the same, some people would quit when they fall, I didn't. It doesn't matter where you started in my opinion. That's why I never stopped lecturing people....RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH. You can start 1000g if you have done a good research. It's just my opinion. Or just start 1g, doesn't really matter.

By the way, you're doing 10g, it has its own twist and turn. You're doing 140g, it has its own challenge. So pick one based on your knowledge and research.


----------



## aweeby (Oct 1, 2011)

i think the extremes are difficult. For me, a 55g tank (not at all big, i know) is kind of hard to maintain cost wise, but a 5g is hard to maintain biologically. By far some of the most enjoyable tanks I've had were mid sized. 15-30g tanks are nice because you get the benefits of both extremes.

The best thing I like about larger tanks is that I can mod things much more easily and there's just so much more room for whatever. I like my nano, on the other hand, partly because it's a new challenge in it's own right, and also because everything's usually cheaper.


----------



## markusdowny (Mar 8, 2012)

Losses might be smaller should you have smaller number of fish...? Yea?



green_valley said:


> This is very interesting, that OP mentioned ppl start 10g, then 140g.
> 
> That's actually me. I didn't have any problem at all. You do what you wish base on your knowledge. No one is the same, some people would quit when they fall, I didn't. It doesn't matter where you started in my opinion. That's why I never stopped lecturing people....RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH. You can start 1000g if you have done a good research. It's just my opinion. Or just start 1g, doesn't really matter.
> 
> By the way, you're doing 10g, it has its own twist and turn. You're doing 140g, it has its own challenge. So pick one based on your knowledge and research.


----------



## shrimpNewbie (May 6, 2011)

I am more into the fish than the scale although both play a big role in any selection of equipment or plants. I started with a 10g then a rimless 20long and then the current 25g cube and Friday I'm setting up my 50g cadlight cube and throwing some breeding kribensis and my breeding plecos, however I'm fairly confident in my scaping skills when it comes to a cube, disregard my journal it looks nothing like it


----------



## Complexity (Jan 30, 2008)

Fishies_in_Philly said:


> My opinion on the whole subject is that every individual is just that, an individual who can make their own decision based on their own experience and $$.


+1

Everything is relative. What is a big tank to one person might be a small tank to another. What is expensive to someone might be chicken feed to another. Some people may get frustrated working with a nano tank while others may get frustrated working with something larger. What works for one person may not work for another and visa-versa.

There is no better way to do it. There is no right way versus wrong way. There are no rules of how you go about starting and evolving in this hobby. It's all a personal choice that is just as individual and unique as the person making the choice.

I've seen people start out small and get bigger. I've seen people go from big tanks to trying their hand at nanos. I've seen people go from purple gravel and pink plastic plants to planted tanks while others have gone from elaborate saltwater setups to planted tanks. There is no set pattern. No one way to do it. It's all up to the individual. Jump in anywhere and go wherever your heart takes you.

The real joy of this hobby is that no matter how different the people may be, there's always something for everyone. I don't think it can get any better than that.


----------



## green_valley (Sep 14, 2011)

markusdowny said:


> Losses might be smaller should you have smaller number of fish...? Yea?


Again, RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:



Complexity said:


> +1
> 
> Everything is relative. What is a big tank to one person might be a small tank to another. What is expensive to someone might be chicken feed to another. Some people may get frustrated working with a nano tank while others may get frustrated working with something larger. What works for one person may not work for another and visa-versa.
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I am talking about :thumbsup:


----------



## InannaMoon (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm with Green, Complexity and some of the others here. It's all relative and I don't think anyone but the person making the purchases should be making decisions about what is right or wrong for them. Some people are rich in cash but short on time. Some have plenty of time but no space. I only started this a couple of months ago but already have 2 tropcial tanks and a goldfish one on the go atm and am getting ready to start my first nano. 

The key is for me to handle all these is that I don't obsess about perfection. I can't. I started this hobby without the wealth of advice I now get here from you guys and realize I have made a few mistakes already. My substrate isn't great for planted tanks (play sand) my lighting is probably inadequate and I don't even have a CO2 delivery system yet! But you know what? My tanks still look nice and I get a lot of enjoyment out of them. I'll keep improving them all as I do but in the meantime there is nothing to say I won't get get yet another tank or even just re-scape because I'm bored. Heck, I only started this because my son likes fish and we thought having an aquarium in his room so that he could see it from his cot in the morning might give us another 15 minutes of sleep or so!! 

So in short, all we can do here is to make sure people have the information they need and let them decide what is best for their lifestyle and wallet.


----------



## xgteen (Mar 7, 2012)

green_valley said:


> Again, RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
> And You did suffer from great loss, did you not? And you were fine with that?


----------



## Bunfoo (Jan 14, 2012)

I think a lot of people like me start small (small being 10g, under) because it is "cheaper" at first. I bought my first planted-tank-to-be second hand at a thrift store and it came with everything I needed. I have sense become a LOT more confident in my abilities and have steadily been moving up sizes. I recently moved all the plants and fauna from my 10g to a 2og, and soon will be moving up to an 80g my sister is giving me.

I personal wouldn't have started large unless I knew what I was doing. i know larger tanks are easier to maintain but when you don't know entirely what you're doing yet, starting small is good too, just as starting bigger is fine too, it all depends on your cash to burn and personal preference mostly!


----------



## green_valley (Sep 14, 2011)

xgteen said:


> green_valley said:
> 
> 
> > Again, RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
> ...


----------



## youjettisonme (Dec 24, 2010)

I think there have been a lot of good responses in this thread, but I'll just add that every person is different. We have different innate aptitudes, different skills, different background, and certainly, different monetary considerations. A nano might be a perfect starter tank for one person while a 50 gallon might be another person's "perfect first tank". 

If you already have a healthy background growing terrestrial plants? If you have a lot of disposable income? If you were a designer in another medium for a decade? If you are mechanically inclined and dabble a lot in DIY projects? How can anyone say that a nano is "the right first tank" for a person like this? They can't. 

My first tank was a 50 gallon. I did plenty of research before taking leaps, still made plenty of mistakes, but in the end I have no thoughts at all that I made the wrong choice. As long as you are good at doing your due diligence and thoughtful about your approach, the size of the tank doesn't have to be such a burden. 

No doubt though, just like buying a boat for example, this hobby makes you spend a lot more money than you had originally intended, and that's just unavoidable.


----------



## Fishly (Jan 8, 2010)

I think the idea of bigger = more stable is false. I think that came from pet stores selling (relatively) large fish to people with small tanks, then realizing, "oh, if they get the same fish, but have a bigger tank, the fish survive longer." Duh. An oscar will last much longer in a 55g than in a 10g. And a school of 1.5" fish (the smallest sold in most pet stores) will fare much better in a 10g than a 2.5g. However, that doesn't mean that the smaller tank is less stable; it just means that the fish were too big. If the fish are in proportion to the tank, there is no reason for a smaller tank to be less stable than a larger tank.

The problem with saying big vs. small is that there are a lot of variables that determine difficulty, cost, maintenance, etc. For example:

*2.5g*
Tank: $12
Heater: $15
Clip-on light and bulb: $25
Aquasoil: $13
Filter: $17
Ferts: $40
Hardscape (ADA rocks): $40
Plants: $50
Bucket, turkey baster, air line: $15
Pressurized CO2: $200
*Total: $417*

Fish: 8 Chili rasboras
Maintenance: 1g water change twice a week
Difficulty: Moderate
__________

*10g*
Tank (with light and CF bulbs): $40
Heater: $25
Dirt capped with PFS: $10
Filter: $20
No ferts: $0
Hardscape (pet store driftwood): $50
Plants (java moss, java fern): $15
Bucket, self-starting gravel cleaner: $13
DIY CO2: $8
*Total: $181*

Fish: CBS/CRS
Maintenance: 3g water change twice a week
Difficulty: High
__________

*55g:*
Used tank: $40
Heater: $25
Used shop light, new bulbs: $40
Pool filter sand with Osmocote tabs: $20
Used filter: $30
No ferts: $0
Hardscape (collected branches): $0
Plants: $100
DIY Python: $25
No CO2: $0
*Total: $280*

Fish: 6 Tiger barbs, 6 cories, 1 bristlenose pleco, 6 zebra danios, 4 platies
Maintenance: 20g water change once a week
Difficulty: Low


----------



## shrimpNewbie (May 6, 2011)

Fishly said:


> I think the idea of bigger = more stable is false. I think that came from pet stores selling (relatively) large fish to people with small tanks, then realizing, "oh, if they get the same fish, but have a bigger tank, the fish survive longer." Duh. An oscar will last much longer in a 55g than in a 10g. And a school of 1.5" fish (the smallest sold in most pet stores) will fare much better in a 10g than a 2.5g. However, that doesn't mean that the smaller tank is less stable; it just means that the fish were too big. If the fish are in proportion to the tank, there is no reason for a smaller tank to be less stable than a larger tank.
> 
> The problem with saying big vs. small is that there are a lot of variables that determine difficulty, cost, maintenance, etc. For example:
> 
> ...


the stability difference is actually fact, it is alot easier to keep large volumes of water within a certain parameter in say a 50gallon container than in a 2.5-20 gallon container. although i have never had problems either way and i've had several different sized tanks, my water changes are far in between with my largest, when compared to my smaller tanks. alot of it has to do with the setup though. i would love to agree with the fish store thing but I can't =p, although most stores are kind of aggressive when it comes to upselling and i wish more people would start small than they do


----------



## xgteen (Mar 7, 2012)

I don't think success would be guaranteed if I had a 140g, no matter how much knowledge I obtained from my 10g.

Might wanna suggest people what to do in order to avoid losses of that scale instead of insisting...?



green_valley said:


> Who said I suffer from great loss because my choice of big tank? Oh, you're bringing up my 50g disaster. Did I suffer? not really. Did I quit? not really. Accident happens all the time, but it doesn't mean I have to start small. Even with tons of knowledge thing could go wrong.
> 
> You think that you're successful on your 10g, and you will be successful with your 140g???? not really.


----------



## green_valley (Sep 14, 2011)

InannaMoon said:


> I'm with Green, Complexity and some of the others here. It's all relative and I don't think anyone but the person making the purchases should be making decisions about what is right or wrong for them. Some people are rich in cash but short on time. Some have plenty of time but no space. I only started this a couple of months ago but already have 2 tropcial tanks and a goldfish one on the go atm and am getting ready to start my first nano.
> 
> The key is for me to handle all these is that I don't obsess about perfection. I can't. I started this hobby without the wealth of advice I now get here from you guys and realize I have made a few mistakes already. My substrate isn't great for planted tanks (play sand) my lighting is probably inadequate and I don't even have a CO2 delivery system yet! But you know what? My tanks still look nice and I get a lot of enjoyment out of them. I'll keep improving them all as I do but in the meantime there is nothing to say I won't get get yet another tank or even just re-scape because I'm bored. Heck, I only started this because my son likes fish and we thought having an aquarium in his room so that he could see it from his cot in the morning might give us another 15 minutes of sleep or so!!
> 
> So in short, all we can do here is to make sure people have the information they need and let them decide what is best for their lifestyle and wallet.



roud:roud:




youjettisonme said:


> My first tank was a 50 gallon. I did plenty of research before taking leaps, still made plenty of mistakes, but in the end I have no thoughts at all that I made the wrong choice. As long as you are good at doing your due diligence and thoughtful about your approach, the size of the tank doesn't have to be such a burden.



Exactly,







. OP thinks that it's not right to start big. In my opinion, there is no right or wrong to start big or small.

You wanted to do big, then do research for big tanks. You wanted to do small, then do research on small tanks. The resources are out there to help you.


----------



## green_valley (Sep 14, 2011)

oops..double post.


----------



## markusdowny (Mar 8, 2012)

Looks to me like...a lot of people are offended because they started big themselves. I think we can provide others with alternatives if we have ever encountered problems with big tanks...The way that this thread is written might not be the best but misleading others isn't that good either.


----------



## TexasCichlid (Jul 12, 2011)

I went small due to space restrictions. I will go big again ( likely another African setup ) when I have the room. My first tank in the hobby was a 55. It's a good size to start with. I would like a 125 - 200 next time. My largest was a 90.


----------



## Pauline's (Jun 26, 2012)

Hmm...Most people in my hometown have so-called nano tanks (around 5 gallon) because of our relatively small living space. But they didn't seem to have too many problems handling water parameters...How many of your really tried small tanks? Or are you guys just saying that because you heard that from someone else? I am just guessing...


----------



## dubels (Jun 14, 2012)

I am actually downsizing into smaller nano tanks


----------



## gordonrichards (Jun 20, 2009)

I suggest a 40 gallon breeder.

Deep enough for most plants.

Wide enough for a small school of fish.

Enough room for a nice scape!

:^)

Costs of running certain tanks are expensive. Running the heater on a 125-200+ gallon tank can be $$ including the lighting on the tank as well.

I say go with a tank that fits a certain area in your living room or office and go with it. 

Tank (Figure $1.00 per gallon on average)
Stand (Cast Iron is available on craigslist all the time)
Good substrate (go with a clay) (Flourite or some inerts like fluval plant stratum)
Fertilizer (Seachem Flourish comprehensive works well) Wanna save money? Go with dry ferts.
Glass tops (Doesn't matter which type, they'll prevent loss of water via condensation saving you effort regarding water changes)
Decent canister filter or HOB (think fluval or aquaclear)
Decent heater (I don't buy quality really. I like tetra, I've bought other brands that work well.
T5/T8 doesn't matter. Get compact fluros for cost savings. T8 will grow plants lol.

Good luck setting up the new tank!


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

Pauline's said:


> Hmm...Most people in my hometown have so-called nano tanks (around 5 gallon) because of our relatively small living space. But they didn't seem to have too many problems handling water parameters...How many of your really tried small tanks? Or are you guys just saying that because you heard that from someone else? I am just guessing...


Really, it's just math. Drop one ml of detergent into a 5 gallon and it's concentrated. Drop one ml into a 50 gallon and it's 10x more dilute. Same goes for everything else.


----------



## lpsouth1978 (Jun 22, 2012)

I have kept MANY tanks ranging in size from 125 down to 3 gallons successfully. I can tell you that it is FACT that smaller tanks are more difficult to keep stable. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you should not start small, I did (10 g). 

Look at it this way. If you have a small tank even very little things can and will impact your water quality much more than in a large tank. Over feeding the tank just a little will cause more of a spike in ammonia or nitrates. Temperatures are more likely to fluctuate wildly, and and any changes will happen more rapidly because there is less water to dilute changes. In saltwater tanks this is especially true because water evaporation can change the specific gravity VERY rapidly in nano tanks. (Not as much an issue here).

I say is someone feels like it would be better for them to learn with a small tank, then that is what they should do. If they prefer a big tank, that is great also. The fact is that there are things to be learned from systems of all sizes and "mastering" one does not necessarily mean you know everything there is about the other. They all have unique challenges and lessons.


----------



## Pauline's (Jun 26, 2012)

Well that's certainly true. But I don't really see how that the concentration is unmanageable. Again, handling water parameters doesn't seem like a problem there...



jcgd said:


> Really, it's just math. Drop one ml of detergent into a 5 gallon and it's concentrated. Drop one ml into a 50 gallon and it's 10x more dilute. Same goes for everything else.


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

I don't think anyone is arguing on the FACT that smaller tanks are harder to handle. But I think that the difficulties embodied are largely exaggerated. People almost believe that a so-called nano tank can only be handled by God. Spending sufficient time to read articles on fish-keeping or aquascaping PLUS some common sense from high school can almost ensure acceptable water parameters.

Still, my main concern is COST. Is it that hard to believe that a bigger tank with more plants, more fish, larger light fixture, more substrate, bigger hardscape is more costly to begin and maintain? And can people please do not try to compare a small high-tech tank to a huge low-tech tank? There are two factors changed here...and that's NOT FAIR...

I take the fact that smaller tanks are harder to handle with no doubt. Can you guys be a little bit more open minded?



lpsouth1978 said:


> I have kept MANY tanks ranging in size from 125 down to 3 gallons successfully. I can tell you that it is FACT that smaller tanks are more difficult to keep stable. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you should not start small, I did (10 g).
> 
> Look at it this way. If you have a small tank even very little things can and will impact your water quality much more than in a large tank. Over feeding the tank just a little will cause more of a spike in ammonia or nitrates. Temperatures are more likely to fluctuate wildly, and and any changes will happen more rapidly because there is less water to dilute changes. In saltwater tanks this is especially true because water evaporation can change the specific gravity VERY rapidly in nano tanks. (Not as much an issue here).
> 
> I say is someone feels like it would be better for them to learn with a small tank, then that is what they should do. If they prefer a big tank, that is great also. The fact is that there are things to be learned from systems of all sizes and "mastering" one does not necessarily mean you know everything there is about the other. They all have unique challenges and lessons.


----------



## nakamura (Jul 3, 2012)

In Japan, most people have "nano tanks". Water parameters do not pose great problems...I believe that this issue is amplified too largely...


----------



## neueklare_ein (Jan 25, 2012)

I am not sure if you guys know it or not but I have a ADA 45F. I have had it for a bit more than half a year by now and I have not encountered any serious problem (yet, maybe?)...

All that I did was scape, flood the tank, wait for two weeks before I added anything. I added bacteria soup every other day during those two weeks. I then added a few fish and shrimp each week. Control my light according to the amount of nutrients and CO2 I added...

Seems fine to me. And it really is hella costly to maintain even such a small tank. I am quite glad that I started small...


----------



## lpsouth1978 (Jun 22, 2012)

tricity said:


> ...Can you guys be a little bit more open minded?


I won't argue the fact that large tanks are MUCH more costly to set up and maintain. But to say that my previous statement is closed minded seems a bit extreme.

If saying that there is no one right answer to starting big or small is closed minded, then I suppose that I am vault. 

The fact is that some will always argue that bigger is better. Others will always say small is the way to go. I personally have enjoyed both very small and quite large systems. As I said before, I personally started small and have done large as well. Every tank has something new to teach us and will improve your skills and knowledge of this hobby in different ways.


----------



## lpsouth1978 (Jun 22, 2012)

Pauline's said:


> Well that's certainly true. But I don't really how that the concentration is unmanageable. Again, handling water parameters doesn't seem like a problem there...


The concentrations do not have to be a problem. It just takes more diligence than a larger tank. IMO if someone can successfully keep parameters stable in a nano, they will generally be able to do so in a tank of any size, barring other inherent challenges.


----------



## ony (Apr 1, 2011)

tricity said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing on the FACT that smaller tanks are harder to handle. But I think that the difficulties embodied are largely exaggerated. People almost believe that a so-called nano tank can only be handled by God. Spending sufficient time to read articles on fish-keeping or aquascaping PLUS some common sense from high school can almost ensure acceptable water parameters.


I think we have been reading different threads. Lots of people on the previous page have argued that nanos aren't difficult at all, no one has said they are impossible for a newbie.



tricity said:


> Still, my main concern is COST. Is it that hard to believe that a bigger tank with more plants, more fish, larger light fixture, more substrate, bigger hardscape is more costly to begin and maintain? And can people please do not try to compare a small high-tech tank to a huge low-tech tank? There are two factors changed here...and that's NOT FAIR...


Not everyone's main concern is cost. Lots of us work hard so that we have a bit of cash to spend on our hobbies. Maybe you should be a little more open minded 

Life is all about trade offs, of course you can compare a small high-tech to a large low-tech. You look at what you want and decide how best to achieve it with the resources you have. Money is not the only resource a large high tech tank needs to flourish.



tricity said:


> I take the fact that smaller tanks are harder to handle with no doubt. Can you guys be a little bit more open minded?


Calm down dear o0

http://xkcd.com/386/


----------



## JoeGREEEN (Jun 28, 2011)

There are too many variables when considering what tanks to buy. I think that as long as the new hobbyist is enthusiastic about his/her 1st tank (be it a 75G low-tech or a 10G leader with plastic plants and dayglo gravel and a pirate motif with 5 glofish,they are good to go)

What I hear from most of the owners of LFS is that many new customers start with a small 10G-20G tank combo and make the mistake of overstocking and getting fish that will become too big (if they survive)

So if someone who has the money and wants a 55G to house an EB Jack Dempsey that he/she will call fred and watch monday night football together in the lvingroom is fine, as long as that person has done all the research i& feels confident in the responsiblities.
And same goes for a new hobbist who is excited about kepping RCS in a 10G (cool)


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Oct 21, 2011)

JoeGREEEN said:


> What I hear from most of the owners of LFS is that many new customers start with a small 10G-20G tank combo and make the mistake of overstocking and getting fish that will become too big (if they survive)


This is why its so important for a new fishkeeper to start with a medium sized tank, something like 29-55 gallons...it gives the ability to learn and make mistakes without everything dying in a day



JoeGREEEN said:


> So if someone who has the money and wants a 55G to house an EB Jack Dempsey that he/she call fred and watch monday night football together in the lvingroom is fine, as long as that person has done all the research in feels confident in the responsiblities.
> And same goes for a new hobbist who is excited about kepping RCS in a 10G (cool)


Yup, that would be cool, the problem is 90% of newbies are putting that EB Jack Dempsey in a Micro-10 gallon tank because its still young and 'fits'


----------



## JoeGREEEN (Jun 28, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> This is why its so important for a new fishkeeper to start with a medium sized tank, something like 29-55 gallons...it gives the ability to learn and make mistakes without everything dying in a day
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that would be cool, the problem is 90% of newbies are putting that EB Jack Dempsey in a Micro-10 gallon tank because its still young and 'fits'


Hey as long as that newbie understands that they will have to save aside for a 55 gallon very soon or trade back to the lfs then fine (pity that usauly they dont bother)


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

You might want to read the first post of this thread? I am not really good at writing. But this Big or Small thread has always been about cost. Cost in absolute sense, not relative. A hundred dollars can be nothing to you but a lot to me. But a hundred dollars is strictly larger than fifty dollars. 

Do you see my point now? 

I don't mean to start a fight with anyone. This is a thread that I started. I do feel kind of upset reading some of the posts here. It has started to become some kind of burden on my shoulders...



ony said:


> I think we have been reading different threads. Lots of people on the previous page have argued that nanos aren't difficult at all, no one has said they are impossible for a newbie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

Oh my God, This is one of the most important point that I want to make (I have failed though).

PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. THEY THOUGHT THAT IT'S CHEAP TO MAINTAIN A TANK!



JoeGREEEN said:


> Hey as long as that newbie understands that they will have to save aside for a 55 gallon very soon or trade back to the lfs then fine (pity that usauly they dont bother)


----------



## JoeGREEEN (Jun 28, 2011)

tricity said:


> You might want to read the first thread? I am not really good at writing. But this Big or Small thread has always been about cost. Cost in absolute sense, not relative. A hundred dollars can be nothing to you but a lot to me. But a hundred dollars is strictly larger than fifty dollars.
> 
> Do you see my point now?
> 
> I don't mean to start a fight with anyone. This is a thread that I started. I do feel kind of upset reading some of the posts here. It has started to become some kind of burden on my shoulders...


well again going with start small or big concerning cost, it will cost allot for a new hobbist to replace all those hard to find shrimps if something goes wrong (like heater stops working just hours before checking on em) then if the new hobbist started with a med?large tank for those expensive shrimps. 
just sayin


----------



## nakamura (Jul 3, 2012)

It's totally a cultural shock to me...I really don't understand why everyone is so scared of starting small here. 29-55 gallon sounds like the size of a bath tub to me. Only a few think of owning a tank of that size in my home country.

There are just a few points that I want to stress:
1. It's cheaper to start and maintain a smaller tank for obvious reasons. I don't see any room for argument. And I agree with the person who started this thread that it's only fair to change one factor when we compare different things. Is that not something that was taught in our first science class?

2. A smaller tank requires more skills to maintain but it's totally possible if enough research is done. I have never had a tank larger than 10 gallon and I have never experienced total loss. I did water check each week and parameters have always (ALWAYS) stay stable.

3. I don't think that anyone is trying to force anyone to accept something. But as a hobbyist, I think I am responsible for letting newbies know what the best thing that they can do is. Just because say I started big doesn't mean that I have to insist that I am right.

Cultural shock...cultural shock...



Ridewithme38 said:


> This is why its so important for a new fishkeeper to start with a medium sized tank, something like 29-55 gallons...it gives the ability to learn and make mistakes without everything dying in a day
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that would be cool, the problem is 90% of newbies are putting that EB Jack Dempsey in a Micro-10 gallon tank because its still young and 'fits'


----------



## tricity (Jun 17, 2012)

So you are assuming that total loss is always the case to all newbies? And bigger tank really can avoid that? Without doing research, those with huge tanks can kill everything too. And the amount that they killed was much larger. Something like this happened before on this forum.



JoeGREEEN said:


> well again going with start small or big concerning cost, it will cost allot for a new hobbist to replace all those hard to find shrimps if something goes wrong (like heater stops working just hours before checking on em) then if the new hobbist started with a med?large tank for those expensive shrimps.
> just sayin


----------



## JoeGREEEN (Jun 28, 2011)

tricity said:


> So you are assuming that total loss is always the case to all newbies? And bigger tank really can avoid that? Without doing research, those with huge tanks can kill everything too. And the amount that they killed was much larger. Something like this happened before on this forum.


Oh boy... What my statement was that cost is relative to many things so I used tank stabilty just as an expample. Yes this hobby can be more expensive if a newbie is allways buying new fish becuase he/she did not do the research (as is what happens allot outside of TPT and other forums) no matter how big or small the tank without essentail reserch the tank may be doomed


----------



## Calmia22 (Aug 20, 2011)

Simple fact: Fishkeeping as an addiction. 

Someone starts off small saying "Oh, I will just get a 10g and have some nice fish" 
Then they begin to watch their tank more and more, research things online, etc. Then it goes from that simple 10 gallon to a big 100 gallon because they love the hobby. 

The biggest issue is that people just don't educate themselves enough on the fish or the equipment. I have recently seen more people asking more questions which is always a good thing, but I still see other people who want a arowana to fit into their 10 gallon.


----------



## JoeGREEEN (Jun 28, 2011)

Calmia22 said:


> Simple fact: Fishkeeping as an addiction.
> 
> Someone starts off small saying "Oh, I will just get a 10g and have some nice fish"
> Then they begin to watch their tank more and more, research things online, etc. Then it goes from that simple 10 gallon to a big 100 gallon because they love the hobby.
> ...


I agree

In a conversation with a LFS owner, he stated that some of his customers are parents with $$$$ who bring their kids to buy fish weekly, for a 10G tank in juniors room and when the owner politely asks ?s about the tank size and the fuana the parents smugly reply "whatever, my kid wants it but he'll get bored of it and when it dies we'll be back for some new fish Jr gets a liking to" and the owner is dismayed knowing this, but the same customer has expensive birds and they allways come to him for birdfood, so he can't just say "I won't sell you any fish sorry" and unfortunatly it is common in the big stores. 
Sad but true


----------



## lewl (Jun 26, 2012)

Controlling water parameters becomes espeically easy when the tank is planted. Those plants act as effective biofilters.


----------



## Eldachleich (Jul 9, 2011)

I started small. I tried big a few times. Alot of people in my life have me manage their big tanks. I still have to say that I like small better.
I find maintenance easier on a smaller tank. And how often it has to be maintained is nearly identical to me. 
I also find larger tanks nearly impossible to keep the parameters stable in.
I suppose its just me but I have a way harder time keeping the levels stable in anything over 20 gallons.
Actually anything above 15 gallons and I start having trouble.
Aside from all that I just find that I enjoy owning and maintaining smaller tanks versus larger ones. Not that I don't have dreams of my own extraordinarily large tanks.


----------



## Eldachleich (Jul 9, 2011)

JoeGREEEN said:


> I agree
> 
> In a conversation with a LFS owner, he stated that some of his customers are parents with $$$$ who bring their kids to buy fish weekly, for a 10G tank in juniors room and when the owner politely asks ?s about the tank size and the fuana the parents smugly reply "whatever, my kid wants it but he'll get bored of it and when it dies we'll be back for some new fish Jr gets a liking to" and the owner is dismayed knowing this, but the same customer has expensive birds and they allways come to him for birdfood, so he can't just say "I won't sell you any fish sorry" and unfortunatly it is common in the big stores.
> Sad but true


Lol... I bet you this is my LFS thinks is happening to all the fish I buy. I think I walk out with at least one fish a week.


----------



## lewl (Jun 26, 2012)

I think a lot of people are just spreading a rumor that they heard. Have they ever tried maintaining small tanks? I understand that whole chemical concentration thing. With more water, chemicals are more diluted. But I think they forget about the fact that there are going to be more livestock (and even more substrate) in a larger tank too! If the number of livestock increase proportionately, chemicals released will increase too! 

It's just not as horrible as everyone says here. Handling a small tank is not even "it's harder but manageable", It's actually as easy as handling a large tank.

Stop spreading rumor!


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

this is entirely opinion based. there is no right or wrong way to start into the hobby. 

there are pros and cons to each. to say one way is wrong, however, is asinine.


----------



## ony (Apr 1, 2011)

Eldachleich said:


> I started small. I tried big a few times. Alot of people in my life have me manage their big tanks. I still have to say that I like small better.
> I find maintenance easier on a smaller tank. And how often it has to be maintained is nearly identical to me.
> I also find larger tanks nearly impossible to keep the parameters stable in.
> I suppose its just me but I have a way harder time keeping the levels stable in anything over 20 gallons.
> ...


Which parameters do you have trouble with on the larger tanks? My main gripe with the nano is keeping a stable temperature. The small body of water just heats up so much faster on a hot day. Lost my largest cherry last week to a particularly hot day.


----------



## ChadRamsey (Nov 3, 2011)

I say start big first. As someone already point out, there is more room for forgiveness with a larger tank. BUT on the down side there is also "more" to fix if something goes wrong.

IF you do start small, like most everyone, you will yearn for a bigger tank eventually. Its inevitable. Its in your human nature. Its the American way to yearn for more. So.......

.....cut to the chase and go bigger!


----------



## lewl (Jun 26, 2012)

Definitely do not try to tell what people SHOULD DO in this country. We all grew up in a culture that stresses individualism and free will. Any opinions should be respected. There is no right or wrong on anything. Sometimes people do get self-centered though.:icon_neut 



scapegoat said:


> this is entirely opinion based. there is no right or wrong way to start into the hobby.
> 
> there are pros and cons to each. to say one way is wrong, however, is asinine.


----------



## chjo (Jun 26, 2012)

+1

The person who started this thread made a great mistake!



lewl said:


> Definitely do not try to tell what people SHOULD DO in this country. We all grew up in a culture that stresses individualism and free will. Any opinions should be respected. There is no right or wrong on anything. Sometimes people do get self-centered though.:icon_neut


----------

