What requires more maintenance?

[ScottVinVA]

A 46 gallon freshwater tank or a 46 gallon saltwater tank?

I always heard saltwater was more of a bio cycle and required less maintenance. Obviously no vacuuming in a salt tank...any ideas?

 

[makana]

vacuuming is necessary at times in SW. it depends on the sand bed grain size and the bioload. if you have a BB (barebottomed) system, obviously no vacuuming is necesaary
but i believe SW or FW is a matter of preference. if low maintanence is really key, i say go FW because a reef is a real TASK to keep in hgood health. GET GOLDFISH, theyre easy to keep and pretty plus a planted FW tank will maintain itself fairly well.

 

[fishfirst]

goldfish are messy, go with some tropicals like platys guppys mollys tetras and barbs... hardy and not messy.

 

[XXFirefighter]

vacuuming is necessary at times in SW

I disagree. I don't own a sand or gravel vaccuum and it' sbeen a year and my DSB looks great. I would only worry if you hac a CC bed.

 

[tmcpeek]

I agree with xxfirefighter. I don't vacuum either. I have a couple of sand sifting stars and snails and my sand looks great.

 

[makana]

i have some crushed coral in my DSB which was a mistake so i need to vacuum up once in a blue moon. my point is if vacuuming is a problem due to effort, keeping a reef will not be any easier. testing parameters alone is more work than gravel vac'ing...

 

[Bearfan]

I don't vacuum my DSB.

Neither is low maintenance if you do it properly.

 

[ScottVinVA]

I only ask because I think SW is more attractive and I might be more interested in keeping it clean. I have grown bored with my tetras and 10gal tank. FW seem to be to drab in coloring. SW I never seem to get tired of looking at.

Thanks for your inputs!

 

[makana]

sure. if youre attracted to it, you have answered your own question my friend
enjoy!

 

[SeriousDude5]

I think my salt water tank is a lot eaier than my fresh tank then again I had ciclids and my final one was an Oscar messiest fish IMO I also had a green terror and a red devil and some more. I rotated kept them let them get big then gave them back. Before I get to off topic salt water is easier and a lot more expensive IMO.

 

[Salttanker]

Honestly, I have kept both and the maintenance is pretty close exept for having to buy salt and essentials. SW tanks are initially more expensive to setup, but worth every dime.
I switch for the very same reason. FW to me was boring. Great practice though.
Mike

 

[captivereefs]

Actually a reef when properly set up is about as stable as they come. Most tanks crash due to owner neglect. Do water changes, keep your equipment in top shape and a reef will last longer than most people want to be in the hobby.

 

[blorkiemom]

For me, the SW is a lot more work . . . more tests, have to worry about having RO water for topoffs, have to think ahead so SW is ready for changes . . . YMMV!

 

[Salttanker]

It is still worth it though, isn't it? I think I would be bored without mine.

Mike

 

[makana]

ahahahahhaha
of course it is worth it. would i be doing it otherwise?
its worth every moment...
even when i wake up at 7am on sunday to add calcium and iodine!
followed by some aquariumadvising.com....
aahhahahahahahhahhahahahha

 

[malkore]

taking the type of fish out of the equation, I'd say a normal FW is much less maintenance than a SW...mainly because SW, especially reef, requires closely watching alkalinity, pH, calcium and salinity...plus you have to pre-mix your seawater.

Now, if you're comparing a high light, CO2 injected planted tank to a reef setup, then maintenance is about the same...both tanks have a lot of test kits, and supplements/ferilizers to keep up on.

Still, neither is that daunting of a task.