size

although it is normally reccomended for beginners to start with the biggest possible aquarium i think that to start small is often better, as mistakes become obvious more quickly and problems are easier to resolve. in a larger aquarium problems are less easy to spot, can build up and then are much more difficult to repair.
anyway i am reminded of the first time i hired a cruiser boat on the shannon and as there were six of us it was a juggernaut. after minimal instructions i proceeded to drive at breakneck speed to the nearest pub along the river. the rest of the crew huddled in the cabin in prayer and eating valium, while i proceeded to hit every boulder in the shallows, and swamp small boats with my bow wave, while racing uber competitive elderly germans (no not tim!) to the next lock with much gesticulation, cursing and fierce looks. (them not me) . anyone who ever boated on the shannon will most likely have had the same adventure on their first trip3e.
anyway although i eventually learned how to drive this bus, it would have been much better to start with something a bit smaller, not least for the other river users.

i agree to a certain extent derek but would advise newbies [for want of a better word]against going to small i.e the nano tanks and stuff like that as i think that is a whole different ball game.
what size tank would you suggest to be the ideal starter.id say 120 ltres
john

To anyone reading.
Dont listen to Derek or you might end up in the situation I am in.
My wife was dead set against fish tanks but after years of working on her I got back into fish keeping.
It was agreed not to go big so I ended up with a 3 foot tank.
Ok to start with I hear everyone saying. Problem is now I am unable to convince her to go bigger.
Dont get me wrong she has been known to sit and watch the fish and even named one of the fish( a red tailed black shark).
My advice is to start as big as possible

...under forum banter rules, I should disagree with Derek just for the hell of it....it then makes a discussion more interesting.

BUT....on such a serious matter....I have to agree with Derek.

Although there are limitations to what can be put in standard 2x1x1 tank, 10 or 12 gallons is easy to handle if something does go wrong: and what could be worse for someone starting out with a 200 gallon tank and having a system collapse? it's bad enough if you have the experience.

On a smaller tank, water changes can be an easy routine thing to get used to and done is no-time with minimal preparation.....compare a 2 gallon (a bucket of water) to a 40 gallon change. We all know human behaviour.
If one believes the same as I do....Water changes are key to good fish keeping....then encouraging good water management from the beginning is vital.

My OH started with 3 smallish tanks (60 litre ones)....and found that she could do a decent water change on each 2 or 3 times a week with minimal effort, only a few boiling kettles, and with maximum results of some super fish. I'm sure that if she had started with a 400 litre tank then water changes would have been a 'bit much'.

But....if you asked me about engine size in a car: the bigger and more powerful.....not just better, but the only way.

ian

yeah 120 it great for a starter tank thats wat i started with abput a year ago now moved on to 260 vision and also have another tank one 180 for breeding so if ya asked me now the bigger the better but in sayin that i learned a lot and if i had a big tank at the start i dont think it would be easy to sort out the problems that i had but TANK god ha that everything is well now

interesting replies, i suppose there are pros and cons as with anything.
just the old adage "the bigger they are the harder they fall" could be applied. as ian said, in the smaller size, say under 200 l, it is easier to repair problems if they arise. on the other hand the bigger tanks will be initially more forgiving of errors but if they fail they fail big.
it only really applies to first time fishkeepers as the more experienced people will see any problem early and rectify it before a disaster looms.

[quote="derek" post=101598

the bigger tanks will be initially more forgiving of errors but if they fail they fail big.

[/quote]

Thats it in a nutshell. For example, when my 400ltr marine system became infested with marine ich I had a major issue with the water. Dropping the sg to mentally low levels and then after three months of that, having to raise it back up again gradually. Untold amounts of wc's and taking readings, not to mention the cost of replacing all that salty stuff. That said, it was worth it seeing the dog face puffer pull through, but had the tank been half the size, the hassel would have been minimal, but then I wouldnt have been able to house the puffer so I guess its all down to taste in the end and a willingness to see something through.

Jay

I must agree with going for the smaller size as a starter. Its definitely easier to handle, easier to maintain and a lot less daunting and time consuming for a beginner.

Once you get the hang of water changes and watching for trouble, then its time for the bigger tanks.

I think you have to accept that any beginner will make some mistakes and there will be some casualties. These are kept to a minimum in a small tank - less ipmact on the poor fish, your mental well-being and your wallet!

hi lads i started off with a 450jewel for my first tank and even though i didnt realy know what i was up to i had a great time stocking it with diferent malawis. which i got from dave darcy who has a fish house and i guess when i saw a fish house for the first time i was amazed with the set up .so i start getting a couple of small tanks which was great but if i had to do it all over again i wouldnt change a thing for me i love big tanks i find it easier for keeping them up to scratch more filtration better all round now i have my own fish house with big tanks now im on the look out for a big net catching can be real fun.ciaran :

I can see Dereks point on this one as a smaller tank has a faster learning curve as conditions do need to be monitored and maintained more frequently, yet on the other side some people start small make the mistakes we all have done at some stage in our fish keeping careers and decide its too hard and give up.. unfortunately the number of lfs's out there who dont give the right advice is too many (and I'm not talking about our sponsers as any of them i've heard give advice it has been spot on) so newbies can quickly get disillusioned, just look at the likes of donedeal or buy and sell and the amount of aquariums being sold as nearly new is amazing... that said i personally recommend to newbie fishkeeper friends to go the bigger is better route along with the proper advice on maintenance. i suppose its all down to education of the basics in the hobby to newbies and not just as the poorer lfs's seem to be profit driven (ie if the fish die we'll just sell em more)

Obviously, I would not be talking about recommending 'smaller is better' in meaning a goldfish bowl or a 17litre boyu as a starter.
To be quite honest, I think that when Lidl and Aldi starting to bring out the Eheim 2 foot tanks (with a different name stamped on them) for 50 odd euro then that was a great offer to get people started, and it meant that, for someone starting, they had saved enough on the tank to allow them buy other vitals like a decent test kit and few books.....and pay a subscription to a fish society to gain something you can't buy.

Now, some fish obviously need big tanks...... I found it too difficult to keep the australian arowana and lungfish in same Kilner jar together (they didn't like the smell of the guppies).

But, I've seen a lot of very sad looking mega-tanks in my time compared to the fact that I seen stunning (and I mean stunning) medium sized fish being kept in a 36x15x12 inch tank.
(and, yes, I have seen stunning mega-tanks as well).

For some fish, they may be quite lazy and not go around hunting for food.......in the wilds they may be in a system that is flooded with food, but you can't do that in captivity unless you happen to have a meag tank full of daphnia as well (eg a siamese fighter in 400 litre tank).

To me, proper water changes beat any fancy filtration system and testing kits any day of the week (for anyone unfortunate enough to be at any of my rather long talks on water chemistry.....basically, I am happy to use science to prove that good water changes are one of the key points to healthy fish).
There is a tendency for larger fish tanks to not get the water changes they need.....there is more to fish health than the nitrogen cycle.

If the person with a mega tank is prepared to do the same proportional water changes as someone with a 60 litre tank, then that is fine.
(I used to have to do regular water changes on 35/40,000 litres of water on my own tanks at one time...so I know what a pain it is).

There is, however, one thing that has concerned me since the 80s (and it is the reason why I pull away from the social side of fish keeping).....it was a growing snobbery I saw start to get a grips.

There was an under current of what "a bigger tank is better" meant to some people.....to some, they were saying "I have a bigger tank, therefore I am better" (maybe because they were "considerably richer than yow" ...harry endfield). Those types of people might as well had added that they are better keepers because they keep expensive Discus fish.

I'm not saying that this is the case here by the way, but it has been used as qualification of fish-keeping skills.....and I've seen it in the Orchid keeping world as well.

Maybe, then, the wording needs clarification.
It should be KEEPING fish in a bigger tank is better, rather than putting fish in an OWNED bigger tank.
The emphasis being that we should be seen as fish (or water) or tank keepers rather than just fish or tank owners.
Hotels own (or rent) big tanks.....we want to encourage people to be keepers.

Just my early morning thoughts, on the first day of my holidays.

ian

Hi al
My earlier post was done half tongue in cheek and half serious.
While I fully understand Dereks advice I think that a conversation neds to be had between couples when deciding o buy a tank. ( bit like the "dogs are not just for christmas" scenario)
A fish tank sounds all well and good at the start but it does involve a lot of work. People are in my opinion more likely to give up if they didnt spend too much at the start. (not advocating spending a fortune either)
Every situation is different ie space available and funds and time to carry out the maintanance.
I think that anybody starting a tank needs to look at 1) what do they want from a tank. 2) what do they want to put into the tank. 3) What are their space constraints. 4) what are their time constraints 4)What are their financial constraints.
Not in any specific order of importance but the other question that must be asked of themselves, is this a fad because they saw one somewhere and think I want that, without realising the work involved.
There is no one size fits all but its interesting to see the amount of people on both sides of the debate.

I also would never recommend a gold fish bowl to anyone nor would I recommend a six foot tank to someone whos 4 year old wants a gold fish. As for the snobbery that was witnessed in the eighties I fully agree with you on your observations. I remember going into fish shops as a sixteen year old and having people talk down to me as if I didnt have a clue what I was talking about. They used to talk to my father without realising that it was my brothers and I that looked after the tanks and did all the water changes etc.

Still, I am rambling a bit and will close by saying I meant no offence just offering a different perspective.

Pat wrote:

Hi al
My earlier post was done half tongue in cheek and half serious.
.

we knew that pat.

its an interesting topic and i suppose there is no definitive right or wrong way to do it as there are so many variables ie commitment, experienced help at hand if needed, type of fish been kept, etc. as you say "no one size fits all"

derek wrote:

Pat wrote:

Hi al
My earlier post was done half tongue in cheek and half serious.
.

we knew that pat.

its an interesting topic and i suppose there is no definitive right or wrong way to do it as there are so many variables ie commitment, experienced help at hand if needed, type of fish been kept, etc. as you say "no one size fits all"

...ditto.

...and if I couldn't do a post myself that is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, then I rarely bother replying to anything. One of the great things about experience is that you start to see a funny side to everything.

I do hope, however, that people read my comments of keeping a 2-foot lungfish and an arowana in a Kilner jar with guppies as being tongue-in-cheek.........Phew.....there's no room for any guppies in the jar.

This topic is interesting and leads us into various philosophies.
To add even more interest to this, it is of interest to see where recommended 'minimum' sizes for certain fish came from.....it can't all be by some super historic inter-connected hippy communication of keepers sharing their experiences (fish-keeping was going before the internet....which may be a surprise to people stuck on facebook all day).

Hopefully, there'll be more postings on this and similar subjects.....afterall there is no harm in quizzing old or new beliefs or trends.

ian