What size tank

TylerT

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Feb 28, 2014
54
0
0
Terre haute Indiana
I'm going to be putting up a saltwater tank soon, I have a 220g and a 55g empty at the moment this is my first saltwater tank I've had fresh water for years now really want to start a reef tank
 

Otherone

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Feb 2, 2009
2,683
4
0
Lancaster,PA USA
Smaller is way friendlier on the wallet - I wish I would've went smaller myself but no - had to go monster and spent monster amounts of money and time, so much so It was almost a total hobby killer.
 

Deubie Doo

Gambusia
MFK Member
Mar 18, 2012
902
2
18
Rootstown, Ohio
www.facebook.com
Smaller is way friendlier on the wallet - I wish I would've went smaller myself but no - had to go monster and spent monster amounts of money and time, so much so It was almost a total hobby killer.
+1 if you want a reef tank then use the 55, use the 220 for a fish only tank. Reef tanks you need live rock (1 lb per gal) it adds up when 1 lb of live rock is $6-8. Even doing $6 live rock for the 55 it will equal $330+ tax. And more live rock is better. It's something to think about. 55 lbs of live rock will still make the tank look empty.
 

cell0phane

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Jun 23, 2014
5
0
1
NY
It will depend on your budget & time willing to devote to it but do keep in mind that smaller the tank, less forgiving if something goes awry.
 

muttley000

Gambusia
MFK Member
Nov 24, 2011
304
1
18
West Unity, OH
It will depend on your budget & time willing to devote to it but do keep in mind that smaller the tank, less forgiving if something goes awry.
Agree, the larger the more stable, and the dimensions of the 55 could hardly be worse for a reef. Try scaping that 60+ pounds of rock in a 12" wide tank and you'll know what I mean. I would consider a 75 ideal for a newbie tank.
 

maxumum2

Candiru
MFK Member
Dec 19, 2011
235
0
46
kenosha WI
I would go bigger start slow it takes forever for it to cycle anyway and just keep adding more rock

Sent from my SPH-L720T using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 

evojoey

Fire Eel
MFK Member
Jul 31, 2008
1,019
1
66
40
Turnersville, South Jersey
Smaller is cheaper, but bigger is easier. I had a 28 gal reef that was a pain in the butt to maintain. Moved the stock into a 180, water params were stabler and much easier to maintain. I agree with Muttley on the 75. A 55 footprint is not friendly for stacking rock. In the end it's all up to you. Saltwater isn't cheap, but if you can swing it, go bigger.
 

Zoodiver

As seen on TV
MFK Member
Aug 22, 2005
6,872
42
1,005
South FL
Live rock is subject to the person building the reef. There is no set rule on the amount in weight you need. What you do need is enough surface area for the bacteria colony to grow on. If you have that, you're ok.

Expense needs to be looked at in the "big picture". The 220 will cost more to get up and running, but in the long run, you'll spend less keeping it going. It will also be more stable and give you less of a headache trying to keep it all in check.

With a larger reef, your best bet is to start slowly and build as time progresses.
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store