How many fish only vs reef tank?

Fish Only vs Reef

  • Reef

    Votes: 529 95.8%
  • Fish only

    Votes: 16 2.9%
  • Had Reef tank turn Fish only

    Votes: 7 1.3%

  • Total voters
    552

Tommy McDonald

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
99
Reaction score
22
What state or country do you live in
Delaware
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Just wondering how many of you guys just have fish vs how many have a reef set up
 
I joined this hobby for corals only. I have one fish, but I find corals more interesting. Not to mention a low bioload tank is less worrisome when im away.
 
Please add one of each (or more).

While reefs are what have drawn me in and I will probably always have a reef until either I die or am too old to take care of it, I'll probably always have a fish only or at least secondary tank so I can keep something weird / not reef safe / unique away from my reef. The natural progression is usually upgrade your tank size, but if you keep the old tank too then it's an opportunity to turn it into something else.
 
Could add an option for Reef tank and Fish only

+1 on this.

Please add one of each (or more).

While reefs are what have drawn me in and I will probably always have a reef until either I die or am too old to take care of it, I'll probably always have a fish only or at least secondary tank so I can keep something weird / not reef safe / unique away from my reef. The natural progression is usually upgrade your tank size, but if you keep the old tank too then it's an opportunity to turn it into something else.

Aways add, never just upgrade...lol
 
I'm gonna say this and it's not what FOWLR people want to hear, but it's my 2 cents.

1) FOWLR is so, so, so ugly. Something about plain rock just looks like an entire tank is being wasted, it literally detracts from the fish to me. Put in some basic soft corals and suddenly it looks like a great system. My ideal "FOWLR" would be Photosynthetic Gorgonians, sun corals, secluded rock structures of paly/zoa's, etc etc.

These corals can be kept with bare minimum lighting and do okay -- It will give your tank a little pop that's missing. They won't need to be the fanciest or crazy looking corals. They won't need much as they're being fed heavily by fish waste and bits of food. And they require very little to no lighting. And lastly, they cost very little, and have almost zero maintenance.

To me, that's a win, win, win.

2) FW fish are better for the big aggressive fish thing. Yep. I said it.

Gar are cool
9413c31dfe72e3be41255b1484433bc6.jpg


$400,000 platinum Arowana (not a typo)
Bs2RNcOCYAAuv9s.jpg


African Tiger Fish
greenerinks-vatf-png.1150092

d0ae8854d4920cc44b950524d5542993.jpg


Freshwater Barracuda
Yellowtail-Freshwater-Barracuda.jpg


Golden Dorado (yes, people keep these big guys!)
IMG_2141-1024x683.jpg




I know, I'm a broken record. I like reefs, and big aggressive FW fish.

If you FOWLR guys feel daring, and want to invest in a BIG tank (i'm talking 1500g+) you will be heavily rewarded by having fish like these. They're amazing creatures, more simple in pattern but equally colorful, and typically easier to setup an Aquarium Quality biotope.

Most of these big guys are river fish, setup a LONG and WIDE tank and put a ton of flow on one end, and some brush on the other end. These guys go great with dither fish, and look amazing with a coarse sandy substrate and a few river rocks. you can have some vegetation with these guys as well.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top