Why are reef tanks not more popular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AC1211
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None
double post
 
The major depression in the hobby happened in 2008 with the financial crisis. When things are tight people start to remove luxury items like aquariums. The hobby numbers have been slowly increasing since 2008 but not to pre-crisis levels.
Not to mention a lot of people were moving due to job loss/change. Moving is not conducive to reef keeping.
 
My 40gal reef tank costs more than most people save in a year, and it’s not even that high tech or large. To really be affordable you really need to get 10gal nano kits out there for ~200 with really clear instructions for setup as no cycle systems. Something like a fluval flex at 200$ and a pro version at 300 with a built in ATO system. Then sell people an appropriate sized cycled bright well brick, fish food that’s easy to measure correctly and be very clear that this tank is sized for 2 clowns and some corals. Even then you still need a 30-40 page instruction booklet to cover basic topics.
 
My opinion is that you have to be 1 of 2 types of people:

1) Have the money to pay someone else to do all the work; enjoy the aesthetics
2) Have a strong interest in aquarium husbandry and everything related to it.

I think the third thing is to know your limits. I mean, a lot of people can successfully keep a reef tank that would be affordable - and beautiful - if they stuck to a relatively small tank, easy coral like zoas, leathers, and xenia, and a small number of captive-bred fish. Honestly the softie tanks tend to impress non-reefers a lot more, because they look more active, while to the causal observer an SPS-dominated tank doesn't look that different from one full of fake coral.

In the planted tank world (which have stayed involved in) there's basically a spectrum now in terms of tanks. There's the "high-tech" systems which are somewhat reef-like (but cheaper) involving high-powered lights and CO2 injection. And then there's the "low tech" tanks, without CO2, where you select easier plants which are easier to grow without added CO2, use a soil substrate, and then you're done, outside of trimming back the growth and topping off. Maybe you use ferts, but if you have heavy fish stocking and the right plants, you don't need to worry about that much even. The ammonia is converted straight into plant biomass, which is then harvested, meaning you can go years without water changes.

I don't think something just like a low-tech system would be feasible for a reef tank. However, reefers seem to concentrate on making ever-more complicated mechanical systems, which even when they lower regular maintenance seem very intimidating (in terms of both setup and cost) to a causal fishkeeper. More of a "keep it simple stupid" philosophy would probably help.
 
Cost, commitment, and the fact people cant get off social media long enough to do something rewarding.lol
 
I think the biggest reason it's not more popular is the patience involved.

There is no instant gratification. Even with full automation, fancy pre-seeded rock, $2,000 lights.. you're still looking at months and months and months of very incremental growth. If you're the type that needs that fast success, you'll more than likely crash it. Patience..

They don't make many of em like that any more.
 
I think you have to thoroughly enjoy it so much, that you are will to put in the time and effort over the long haul. And then there is required measured patience not to rush it.
 
I don't think something just like a low-tech system would be feasible for a reef tank. However, reefers seem to concentrate on making ever-more complicated mechanical systems, which even when they lower regular maintenance seem very intimidating (in terms of both setup and cost) to a causal fishkeeper. More of a "keep it simple stupid" philosophy would probably help.
I think we’re slowly getting there AIO systems are helping but they still haven’t bridged the gap. Once we see AIOs with robust ATO systems built in that will be another leap forward in simplicity
 
I think the third thing is to know your limits. I mean, a lot of people can successfully keep a reef tank that would be affordable - and beautiful - if they stuck to a relatively small tank, easy coral like zoas, leathers, and xenia, and a small number of captive-bred fish. Honestly the softie tanks tend to impress non-reefers a lot more, because they look more active, while to the causal observer an SPS-dominated tank doesn't look that different from one full of fake coral.

In the planted tank world (which have stayed involved in) there's basically a spectrum now in terms of tanks. There's the "high-tech" systems which are somewhat reef-like (but cheaper) involving high-powered lights and CO2 injection. And then there's the "low tech" tanks, without CO2, where you select easier plants which are easier to grow without added CO2, use a soil substrate, and then you're done, outside of trimming back the growth and topping off. Maybe you use ferts, but if you have heavy fish stocking and the right plants, you don't need to worry about that much even. The ammonia is converted straight into plant biomass, which is then harvested, meaning you can go years without water changes.

I don't think something just like a low-tech system would be feasible for a reef tank. However, reefers seem to concentrate on making ever-more complicated mechanical systems, which even when they lower regular maintenance seem very intimidating (in terms of both setup and cost) to a causal fishkeeper. More of a "keep it simple stupid" philosophy would probably help.
It only takes a little 20g fish only tank to start.
 
It's hard, expensive and messy. It requires attention every day. You get really attached to cool stuff and something stupid happens and it dies. You have to put a bunch of electrical stuff in saltwater and put your hands in with it. It will mess up your floors, carpets and walls. It runs up your utility bills.

I don't know why it's not more popular.


Now that you put it like that, my tank is now up for sale today. LOL!!
 
I think the biggest reason it's not more popular is the patience involved.

There is no instant gratification. Even with full automation, fancy pre-seeded rock, $2,000 lights.. you're still looking at months and months and months of very incremental growth. If you're the type that needs that fast success, you'll more than likely crash it. Patience..

They don't make many of em like that any more.

I really think this is one of the biggest reasons.
Difficulty is probably the second biggest reason.
Most hobbies are expensive - I don't think it's that.
 
Plus this is one of few hobbies where a failure causes a animals death.
 
An example of the failure end. It has taken months from the problem max point to get it to some normalcy.
 
Anyone I talk to I hear "seems expensive, I can't even keep a goldfish alive, or I couldn't afford that."
 
Sorry, mis hit. If one struggles keeping fresh water tank inhabits alive then marine tanks have more parameters to watch out for. Most of mates have given up and their empty tanks sit idly by a testament to the failures and a decline in commitment following many fish deaths.
 
My father has seen what i do to the tank to maintain it, from water changes, feeding, cleanings etc. He says even if they paid him he wouldnt do it lol
 
Thread is still going I see LOL.

I wonder if folks think that the hobby being more or less popular is a good or bad thing? I suppose there are pro and cons.
 
LFS are too predatory IMO.

Just one example: Hobbyists should not have to QT fish from an LFS. The LFS has an obligation to sell you something that isn't going to crash your tank. Stop apologizing for them and making up excuses, "ThHaT wOuLd Be impOsSiblE" Figure it out, you run the store! Not me.

When people accept, jusifty, and apologize for poor business practices it's gonna be bad news for a hobby.
 

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