55 or 75?

[nijoe1221]

Hi everyone. I recently was thinking about upgrading my 29 to a 55. But I've been reading a lot of stuff online about how 75gallons are the way to go! Easier on chemistry, better scraping etc. my issue is, how much more will it cost me? Not really worried about the initial start up (live rock, sand and fish). How will this effect my cost for upkeep (salt, chemicals etc.). Anyone have any experience with this?

 

[dcutl002]

A 75 gallon tank is the way to go. I have two 55 gallon tanks and the problem with them especially if you have a planted tank, is that they don't have enough depth, especially for plants like Amazon
swords. So in my opinion, I would go with a 75 gallon tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nijoe1221]

This would be for saltwater. Do you have any idea if there is a drastic difference in upkeep?

 

[nijoe1221]

And you're right about the depth. It's ridiculously smaller! Any great tank design I come up with probably won't work because it will be so close to the front

 

[dcutl002]

I have no experience with marine tanks. But, I assume the upkeep to be equivalent. I am sure a "REEF"er will chime in soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nijoe1221]

Gotcha. Well thanks for your input!

 

[BigRedsReefs10]

As far as monthly costs go I doubt it would be any more than the 55, maybe a little more in salt per year but that's it. Start up will be a little more though as you'll want the bigger versions of the equipment. But the extra depth would be well worth it IMO.

 

[nijoe1221]

As far as monthly costs go I doubt it would be any more than the 55, maybe a little more in salt per year but that's it. Start up will be a little more though as you'll want the bigger versions of the equipment. But the extra depth would be well worth it IMO.

Would I need to upgrade skimmer if I don't plan on having a lot of coral? I just want to start slow with a few softies and maybe a torch/frogspawn/or hammer. I have a skimmer that's only good up to 65 gallons. Also would I need a sump for a tank that big?

 

[54seaweed]

for the cost of a 75g it would be cheaper to just get a 90g in long run
and you would be happier


as for upkeep I really haven't seen a big change in cost to upkeep
it's really the start up that gets you deep in the pocket IMO
buying everything you need
I've run my 90g with no sump almost 4 months no sump no big issues
now I finally got a sump the change in water condition isn't drastic but yes it is noticable

 

[nijoe1221]

for the cost of a 75g it would be cheaper to just get a 90g in long run
and you would be happier


as for upkeep I really haven't seen a big change in cost to upkeep
it's really the start up that gets you deep in the pocket IMO

I think a 90 would be awesome but just enormous for my apartment lol. But I'm debating the 55 and 75 only because my buddy is basically giving me one of then at a very low cost. And yea I'm dreading the cost on all the extra live rock I'll need. Do you know some cheaper alternatives?

 

[54seaweed]

be cheaper to use base rock it will become live over time and cost a fraction of what it would to do all live rock
the tank will cycle the same as long as you use a good ammonia source

 

[nijoe1221]

be cheaper to use base rock it will become live over time and cost a fraction of what it would to do all live rock
the tank will cycle the same as long as you use a good ammonia source

Ok thanks. So the new tank will have a brand new cycle even though I'm adding all my old stuff? (LR, sand, filters)

 

[BigRedsReefs10]

If you use base rock and transfer your established rock over you may have a small cycle. And a sump isn't necessary but it will make your life easier so that's up to you. I would probably upgrade the skimmer if it was my set up, but again that's up to you

 

[nijoe1221]

If upgrading the skimmer increases the chance of my corals living then yea I might as well. As for the cycle, should I add my fish a few days later or is the same day ok?

 

[BigRedsReefs10]

Do you have coral in your current tank?

 

[nijoe1221]

No I don't. I had a bta but have him away because I didn't have a good enough light. I plan on having corals. Just not full blown reef

 

[BigRedsReefs10]

Then I would say your fine to transfer everything at once, as long as you keep your established rock wet you shouldn't have any die off, and it should have a strong enough bb population for the live stock already in the tank. Keep an eye on the params to make sure you don't get any ammonia spikes. I would treat it like a cycling tank though and let the new rock mature for a few weeks or so before adding any new livestock. And this last part is going to be just my $.02, but I would ditch the old sand and use all new sand in the new tank, sand is pretty much the cheapest part of setting up a tank and I wouldn't want an old sand bed causing problems in my new tank.

 

[Dav3]

75 and 90 have same footprint. 90 is about 4" taller.

 

[nijoe1221]

Then I would say your fine to transfer everything at once, as long as you keep your established rock wet you shouldn't have any die off, and it should have a strong enough bb population for the live stock already in the tank. Keep an eye on the params to make sure you don't get any ammonia spikes. I would treat it like a cycling tank though and let the new rock mature for a few weeks or so before adding any new livestock. And this last part is going to be just my $.02, but I would ditch the old sand and use all new sand in the new tank, sand is pretty much the cheapest part of setting up a tank and I wouldn't want an old sand bed causing problems in my new tank.

Thank you. Just curious as to why there might be a problem with old sand?

 

[Sniperhank]

Thank you. Just curious as to why there might be a problem with old sand?

Old sand tends to be loaded with old food and poop, to keep things simplified. Stir that all up and throw it into a new tank will give you increased, and sometimes deadly, parameters. It is best to just pitch and start with new on any upgrade or transfer.