Is bigger really easier?

[revhtree]

Not easier but not too much tougher IMO.

 

[Nicholas Dushynsky]

I'm going to go against the grain of the 'conventional' logic here.

I downsized from a 430g system (180g DT & 75g DT & 175g sump/refugium) to a 200g system (120g DT & 40g DT & 40g sump) about 3 years ago and it was less work. Then I downsized from the 200g sys to a 70g system (40g DT & 30g sump/refugium) a year ago and it's been even less work. Over the course of a typical month I'd guess my work hours related to aquariums has dropped 75%.

Yes, bigger is better in terms of stability... but IMHO, that's about the extent of it being better. I need to make less saltwater, do smaller, therefore easier, water changes. I have less glass to clean. I have a smaller skimmer to care for and clean. My 20g auto top off tank needs to be refilled way less often. All my spare components cost less because they are smaller.

BTW, the reason for my downsizing was 2 fold. First, I wanted to reduce the amount of maintenance work I had to do as well as make it easier for my tank sitter while my wife and I do a lot more traveling. Second, I realized I can get a smaller tank to mature and look spectacular much quicker and easier than a bigger tank! It's also a lot less expensive, but that wasn't even a consideration for me.

I agree with all your points.

 

[Nicholas Dushynsky]

I don't think anyone has ever made this claim without having an ulterior motive (a LFS owner wanting to sell you an expensive saltwater setup, for instance). There's no way that saltwater is easier than fresh. Is it that much more difficult? No, absolutely not. I'd say they're probably pretty close in effort, with salt just being more expensive and needing more tools and time. But there's no way that salt is easier.



This is a fair point, especially about the placebo effect. People are horrible at discerning cause and effect, as well as making rational and objective decisions about outcomes (this is, essentially, why the scientific method evolved). Having said that, have you ever maintained a large tank? Have you ever siphoned a larger sand bed? Have you ever wiped down the glass of a larger tank? How do you know you don't just believe your smaller tank to be easier because you've never cared for a larger tank?

Personally, I would always take as large a tank as I could get (under 10,000 gallons or so). I work in the Living Seashore exhibit at the National Aquarium in Baltimore. The smallest tank we have in my exhibit is 93 gallons. The main touchpool is 2,300 gallons and the Community Living tank is 1,800 gallons. These tanks are much easier to take care of than my home tank. They take more time, but it's not a lot amount more. Take the Community Living tank. The siphon is over 4 feet tall for this tank. I need to get a ladder out of storage to even get my hands into this tank. Is the sand easier to siphon on my 20g long? Of course (or, it would be if I had sand). Is the rock easier to scrub in my 20g than it is in the 1,800 community tank? You betcha. Is it easier to just use my magnetic scraper at home as opposed to using the telescopic pole on the floor mop to clean the inside of the Community tank acrylic? Of course.

Is it that significant of a difference? No. Even getting the ladder out, the tank is cleaned in less than 20 minutes. Sure, it might take you 5 minutes or less to do this in your home tank, but this isn't a huge difference considering the huge increase in tank size. Plus, not every large tank is 1,800 gallons either. Siphoning just doesn't take that much time. A 120g tank has less than double the floor space of a 40g breeder. So if you spend 5 minutes siphoning a 40g breeder, a 120g would only cost you 5 more minutes of maintenance in that area.

Are there reasons to have a smaller tank? Absolutely. The costs in this hobby just balloon as the tank gets larger. I personally wouldn't do more than a 40g breeder without some serious financial planning. But, that's a different discussion for a different time. Having worked with extremely large tanks, I would personally take a large tank any day over a smaller one.

Your point is valid as the question is larger easier then yes but for the normal everyday person that has a job and just wants to sit I front and watch it without having to get a ladder and a mop just to clean the glass at the end of a busy day. Your lucky that you work an that sort of environment. But the pure running costs of a very large tank are a bit beyond people's budgets. Unless you own an island and you can do an underwater room on a Reef

 

[Greaps]

My most successful tank was a bare bottom 20g high .Started with dry rock. Did 5g water changes once a week and corals were thriving. I did no testing. Birds nest, zoa's, frogspawn all growing rapidly. Used a kessil led on an on off timer and a vortex mp10. That's honestly it. Very easy

I next tired a larger tank a 50g cube and experimented and that tank was way more work. It had a more controllable led that he me guessing, a skimmer, and liquid carbon dosing which no doubt all harmed stability with my application.

I am tankless presently but will be moving into a 120g. I'm not afraid of a little more work it's worth it.

 

[Nicholas Dushynsky]

You said Clean tank with lots of colonies? It can be done with my 360g also

How much food do all those fish eat per day? I expect 1 feed in that tank is more than I feed my 3 nano tanks (10 small fish in 6 months.

 

[mtraylor]

From my personal experience when you go bigger, you typically buy all the equipment you should have had when you had a smaller aquarium, such as controllers, RODI, proper filtration, etc. Its things that you learned from your smaller aquarium. Thus at this point, the saying comes its "easier" because you have upgraded everything and put all the knowledge you had from smaller tanks into works to make things work for you better.

Now that being said. If you cant keep a small aquarium going, then a big one is not going to be any different. Yes its true that water chemistry happens slower due to more volume, but it still needs addressed.

 

[Nicholas Dushynsky]

I should also add, a 5 gallon WC on the 32 gallon (one bucket) takes 5 minutes. The 210 gets 15 gallons (3 buckets), which requires 3 trips up the stairs and takes 20+ minutes.

That being said, I can skip a week on the 210.

I skip 6 weeks on a 20gallon sumpless 2 yr old run on NSW.

 

[Ghost463]

Personally i find micro tank is a well suited name. Micro tank = micro manage.

 

[jtl]

As I have said previously my 100 perfect for me. Easy to maintain and cheap to run. It is about a year old now. My photographic iPhone skills suck. Like they all say "it looks better in person"

 

[Kmsutows]

I'd say my 55gal was easier than my 150gal. 150 needs a ton more water. Both to do a water change and the 1.5gal of top off water it needs. No mixing station of any kind. So if same equipment is used then hands down smaller is easier. Not to mention if something goes really wrong on the 150 the most back up water I can store is about 30gals.

 

[vetteguy53081]

How much food do all those fish eat per day? I expect 1 feed in that tank is more than I feed my 3 nano tanks (10 small fish in 6 months.

LOL - They consume about 3OZ per day plus dry food.

 

[vetteguy53081]

As I have said previously my 100 perfect for me. Easy to maintain and cheap to run. It is about a year old now. My photographic iPhone skills suck. Like they all say "it looks better in person"

Don't beat yourself up. The picture and tank looks good !!!

 

[Nicholas Dushynsky]

LOL - They consume about 3OZ per day plus dry food.

That sounds quite alot of food.

 

[vetteguy53081]

That sounds quite alot of food.

Worth it to me. Nice healthy fish with color galore

 

[E_reefer]

Worth it to me. Nice healthy fish with color galore

Hey you have a build/tank thread? I would love to check your system out.

 

[vetteguy53081]

Hey you have a build/tank thread? I would love to check your system out.

On this tank, I do not but may have enough pics to construct one. Will work on that

 

[2Wheelsonly]

Bigger is much easier from a stability standpoint, much more expensive when things go wrong.

 

[CJS80]

I voted yes because the way the question is worded, but the question is worded wrong. Yes maintaining water stability is easier in a larger tank, however maintenance is based on size equipment, and what your goal for the tank is. I will use water changes for example, since it has been brought up a lot. On say a nano tank one might be doing small water changes daily which take up little time. Now on a medium sized tank you may only do a water change weekly or less frequent depending how the tank is set up, so it puts all the time together instead of spread out. Plus the hauling of more water if you don't have equipment to do it for you. With a large tank most would spend the money to get equipment to pretty much eliminate water changes, but now you have to put time and effort into maintaining the extra equipment. Personally I think the 2 biggest questions to ask yourself is "What do I want the tank to be", and "How much time can I put into it". With these 2 questions you can chose what size is right for you and your budget.

 

[fish farmer]

I'd like to add this, If two tanks say a 20 gal and a 200 gal have the same percent biomass and are both kept in a climate controlled room, both have the same equipment built to scale....for instance the 20 gal has a 5 gal ATO and the 200 gal has a 50 gal ATO would't they both get in the same kind of trouble if each ATO dumped it's entire contents into the tank? I would think the same would be true with adding chem to the tank, your demand may be low on a smaller tank and higher on a larger tank, therefore it is up to the reefkeeper to calculate the proper dosage for the volume whether it is a sweat of calcium for a reef bowl or a cup for a 200 gal.

IMO size doesn't matter it's understanding the biomass, it's needs and sizing your equipment(or lack of) to safely manage your water parameters.

 

[6TankReefer9]

Yes.

Big tank = Big gear. Big gear = Saves time. Saves time = Easier.

Big gear is more efficient. Keeps water cleaner, easier. Mixing is hard with small tanks because most use a 5g bucket, people with big tanks use a mixing station where they only turn a few knobs.

Bigger is easier in every sense of the word, aside from cost.

I couldn't disagree more. Bigger is NOT easier! I'd say a 20-30gallon volume system is the sweet spot for new reefers! A 5 Gallon tank might be a hard task for a novice reef tanker to upkeep, however a 50-100Gallon in addition to sump volume would be an even greater feat, especially when you take into consideration cost- salt mix, large mixing station, time - cleaning, making RO/DI water. I think the premise of reef keeping in general is not to start unless you have the fundamentals down, otherwise it's not fair to the livestock, but telling a novice that greater volume is easier is a great misunderstatement and disregard to many critical factors! Once again, bigger is NOT easier, especially if you consider a system crash, resetting a 50-100+ gallon system is a NIGHTMARE!