Cichlid Fish Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'v recently moved to my new house and decided i won't restart my main SW peninsula tank anymore.
Than means i will convert it to FW tank and would like to fill it with some of the mbuna from my other tanks.

My SW tank has abit of a odd dimensions, since it's a custom tank.
It's 120x100x60cm (about 47"x40"x24") that around 720L/190gal + 128L/34 gal sump.

My stocking idea would be:

3:5 Metriaclima Zebra gold Kawanga
3:5 Labeotropheus Trewavasae Thumbi West MC + O
3:5 Labidochromis Hongi Red top Sweden
3:5 Pseudotropheus Cyaneorhabdos Maingano
3:5 Labidochromis Perlmutt
10 Synodontis Fry control

Would this be too much? Since the tank is only 47" long, although the surface area is much larger than a normal 47" tank.

What is more important lenght or surface area? :-?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
magila said:
...What is more important length or surface area?...
The 'surface area' (area covered by the substrate, often called the 'footprint') is the most important parameter. Your tank, with a 47" x 40" footprint, will have a much larger capacity that a standard US 55g (48" x 12" footprint) even though both tanks are the same length. That said, a longer tank, say 72" x 26", would generally have more capacity that your 47" x 40" tank, even though their surface areas are virtually identical, because longer tanks offer the fishes greater 'flight paths' to escape conflicts.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,390 Posts
I would stock it like a 90G with 4 species and 1m:4f of each. Maybe drop the perlmutt? Because the maingano and labeotropheus are more aggressive I would go with 1m:7f on those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,197 Posts
DJRansome said:
I would stock it like a 90G with 4 species and 1m:4f of each. Maybe drop the perlmutt? Because the maingano and labeotropheus are more aggressive I would go with 1m:7f on those.
Neither are so aggressive to require such stocking. 1m 4f would be fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
DJRansome said:
I would stock it like a 90G with 4 species and 1m:4f of each. Maybe drop the perlmutt? Because the maingano and labeotropheus are more aggressive I would go with 1m:7f on those.
US sizes still confuse me :roll: A 90G is 48"x18"x24" right?
My tank is 47"x40"x24"
That would mean my tank is approximately 2x 90G next to each other (if my calculations are correct.)
What is the reason you would still only stock it as only 1x 90G tank instead of 2x?

Also just for curiosity, are there no standard sizes between 48" and 72"? I can't seem to find it online. Thats a pretty big gap.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,390 Posts
You are correct. The limiting factor is the length. Although 60" tanks are available, the standards go from 48" to 72".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Theoretical it would mean that if i put a extra piece of glass in the middle and make it into 2x 90G,I could have double the stocking capacity ( not that i'm going to do that). So basically the depth of my tank is just a waste of space when it comes to Malawi.

In that case i have to reconsider my choice to make it a Malawi tank...maybe it's better suited for something else/less agressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
DJRansome said:
...The limiting factor is the length...
As I tried to explain above, length is an important factor, but it is not the sole or 'limiting' factor. If it were the 'limiting' factor, then front-to back width would be irrelevant, and a 55g (48 x 12") would be equivalent to a 75 g (48 x 18"). This is nonsense, and would lead to such potentially nonsensical conclusions as that suggested below-

magila said:
...Theoretical it would mean that if i put a extra piece of glass in the middle and make it into 2x 90G,I could have double the stocking capacity... So basically the depth of my tank is just a waste of space...
To the OP- No, the 'depth' of your tank (by which you mean the front-to-back width, not the top-to-bottom depth) is not a waste of space. The unusual 40" width of your tank greatly increases its capacity compared to a narrower (e. g. 48 x 18' or 48 x 24") tank. To suggest otherwise, saying that length alone limits capacity, is yet another bit of oversimplified nonsense. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
magila said:
...Also just for curiosity, are there no standard sizes between 48" and 72"? I can't seem to find it online. Thats a pretty big gap...
There are many different 60" tanks; here are two of them-

75g long (60l x 18w x 16"h)-

IMG_3167.jpg


100g (60l x 18w x 20"h)-

IMG_0112.jpg


There are also a number of tanks with 60 x 24" footprints.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top