# Would you.....



## Zayna (Apr 19, 2009)

.... recommend that a first time fish keeper get marine fish?? Or is it much better to stick to coldwater?


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2010)

Well I know nothing of fish!! other then I have admire the marine variety on maqny occassions! was told that they are more difficult to look after then the cold water variety!
Chillinator knows his onions where fish are concerned though! check out some of his threads!

DT


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Not unless you have an experienced friend close by who is willing to put a lot of time in to help you. The only advantage of going straight to marine is that you never learn you can get away with mistakes. Some people swap to marines and because they have got away with things in a tropical tank think they will with marines


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2010)

I agree with hawksport, unless you have someone experienced to turn to when things go wrong, I'd give it a miss for now.

While marine fishkeeping has never been easier with advanced knowledge and better equipment, it is still easy to make small errors that can turn into big problems.

The main problem is that marine organisms come from an environment that is nearly perfectly stable, and hardly ever changes chemically. This makes marine fish and invertebrates quite sensitive to sudden and large fluctuations.

Remember, that you aren't necessarily restricted to coldwater fish. A large number of tropical species are actually much easier to keep, with hundreds of species being much smaller in size and easier to house. A large portion of tropical fish can actually be hardier than goldfish. The only additional pieces of equipment that you need are a heater and a good digital thermometer.


----------



## Maiisiku (Feb 20, 2009)

I've had reasonable success with my freshwater tropical tank. But I wouldn't even dream of going marine until I had a few more years experience. It's got a lot more involved in it and the slightest mistake can cost you £100's or £1000's of pounds.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

A tank of Mbuna would make a good stepping stone to marines. Wish I had kept mine now


----------



## Zayna (Apr 19, 2009)

thanks guys, will steer clear of marines for now then.... my friend is giving me a tank next week, i know it has a filter and a heater. I did have my heart set on a couple of fancy goldfish but although the tank is fair size i dont think it will be big enough for 2 fancy goldfish as i know they need alot of room.

Was thinking about getting a couple of smaller fish instead??

Any ideas??


----------



## Fishyfins (Feb 28, 2009)

i, in a way, would like to disagree with the above views. ive been keeping fish for nearly 15 years, of all disciplines (coldwater, right through to marine), and ive worked in the trade for 6 years, dealing with them all as well. and i would venture to say that marine is a lot easier than freshwater. this is both from my own personal experience, and the experiences in the trade.

now, there are obvious differences between freshwater and marine, in terms of everything from equipment needed, to the fish and environment.

the hardest thing about marine is the initial set up. with tropical, the setting up is indeed a lot easier. baicaly, get a tank, get your filter and heater, cycle it fishlessly, then add fish gradually. equipment is all standard and easily available, and very little else is needed.
with marines this isnt the case, and specialist equipment is needed, though a good marine stockist will have all that you need. the main list of items is much the same as tropical - tank, filter and heater, though for a filter you would need to opt for an expensive external instead of a standard internal. you may be pressed into buying a protein skimmer. these devices are fine if you plan on keeping fish only, but when you have inverts in there like corals and shrimps, they can be a little troublesom (they remove from the water the trace elements the corals and inverts need to grow, so do inhibit them. skimmer users need to regularly dose the tanks to replace these minerals, which is expensive and dangerous if done incorrectly). if you plan on keeping really difficult and expensive hard corals however, you would probably need the skimmer in there, and have to top up your trace elements.

one other difference for marine is the need for live rock. this is rock that has been exposed to the reef, and as such has been colonised with small organisms and bacteria. a lot of these are bnefitial for the tank, and help the tank to mature. the ulk of thestaup cost will be in the rock. for example, a 150L tank would probably cost you about £500 in rock alone. a lot of people fail to realise the importance of this rock, and end up having problems.

after this though, set-up is much the same as with tropical.

now, thats the hard bit. once thetank is fullyset up and the fish are in, then the tanks are far easier to maintain than their freshwaer counterparts, and heres why:

Freshwater environments can be highly dynamic systems, with changes in chemical composition, temperature change and other such things happening very quickly. as such, most freshwater fishes have evolved to cope with such swings.
marine environments are one of the most stable environments on earth, with such chemical and temperature changes being very rare. as such, the fish arnt able to cope with such changes very well.

so, by now your probably thinking that marines sound a lot more dificult than tropical. well, here is why i dont think they are.
marine tanks, if set up correctly, are far more stable than tropical tanks. due to the live rock, and the "clean up crew" you will have (hermit crabs, sandsifting starfish, terbo snails ect...), the water remains far more stable, and algae is alot less of a problem. this means less maintainance for you, less water changes and such, and far less chance of anything going wrong. its a lot easier to keep them going. 
tropical tanks however, because that buffer isnt there, have far more problems. chemicals can swing far more easily in tropical tanks, an condtions can deteriorate a lot faster. because of this far more water changes and algae cleaning will be needed, and they are generally more work.

so yeah. marine tanks are more complicated and expensive to set up, and the fish are less hardy, but once they are set up, the conditions are very stable, and little maintainance should be needed. once set up is done, your problems are over.
tropical tanks are cheaper and easier to set up, and the fish hardier, but they require a lot more time and effort to keep clean and safe for the fish.

so really, the choice is yours. if your pocket is deep enough, and you follow the rules, then go marine. if cost is an issue, and you dont mind the extra work in the long run, then go tropical. but in my opinion, marines are well worth the extra cost!

hope this helps
Fishyfins


----------



## Zayna (Apr 19, 2009)

thanks for the advice fishyfins

as i dont have a huge budget i think i will stick to either coldwater or tropical. if my tank isnt big enough for fancy goldfish I think i will go for tropical. There arent any other coldwater fish i fancy apart from the fancy goldfish!

i'll prob be on here every 2 seconds asking for help!!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2010)

Fishyfins said:


> i, in a way, would like to disagree with the above views. ive been keeping fish for nearly 15 years, of all disciplines (coldwater, right through to marine), and ive worked in the trade for 6 years, dealing with them all as well. and i would venture to say that marine is a lot easier than freshwater. this is both from my own personal experience, and the experiences in the trade.
> 
> now, there are obvious differences between freshwater and marine, in terms of everything from equipment needed, to the fish and environment.
> 
> ...


Not singing the praises of either side of fishkeeping with my comments, just adding my two cents.


----------



## Fishyfins (Feb 28, 2009)

i hear what your saying, and i believe alot of it simply comes down to experience, or just pure science. 

what you say about trace elements is correct. when i said dangerous, i do mean such things as iodine. ive known far too many fishkeepers who have overdosed on such trace elements (on the advice of shops and the internet), and lost their whole tanks as a result. to me personally, who only keeps a selecton of soft corals and small motile inverts, i generally dont bother with anything but calcium, and the trace elements in the salt mix i use. if your keeping SPS corals, then it does need to be done properly, with adding the chemicals, and im sure many reefkeepers would employ more costly methods when doing this... it just makes sense to do so.

as for live rock. again, what you say is 100% true, it would be cheaper to buy second hand. though of course, with any such transaction, you run the risk of fraudulent traders, and end up with rocks covered in aptasia, hair algae, or even worse. of course, the risk does exist if you buy new as well i suppose, though id say its a lot less prevolent. the amount of times ive seen aptasia covered rock on ebay XD

now, the next point you make, about stability, is an interesting thing. ive worked with marine tanks from as low 20L, to about 1000L. as you say, the general rule is that the larger a tank, the more stable it is. however, i have had many examples of exactly the reverse. here is an example: my father keeps a 200L marine tank in his living room. this tank has been up and running for about 5 years now (in this current form anyway). now, he has a good sized external filter, and uses all the correct equipment, an does things generally well. however, he uses very little live rock, and has very few inverts in there. the tank is also lightly stocked. the water chemistry is forever swinging, fish are lost frequently, and the waer is generally not very stable.
in comparison, i keep a small 90L marine tank in my bedroom. heavily stocked, all the same brand and style equipment (just smaller cos of the tank). i also keep a lot of live rock in the tank, and a lot of reefcleaners. so, the only differences are that mine is smaller in volume, and has more fish stocks, rock and inverts. 
now, my dad does a water change every week, and its needed, as nitrates and phosphates rise quickly, and alae takes over (nasty hair algae). my tank (which has been running for 7 years might i add), requires a water change once a month, and even then, all levels are within acceptable levels, (i only do it out of my fishkeeping pride). ive also only lost 1 fish in those 7 years.

now, obviously i have experience, and to me, my father does nothing wrong. ive tried to fix his problems, as have other experts, but his tank just wont stabilise. yet mine is a wonderfully stable environment with few problems. and this isnt the only example ive seen of this, ive had many cases where this exact situation has played out, with smaller tanks generally being more stable than larger tanks. i mean, im a graduate of geography, i know the science behind it, and what should happen. the only concuion i can draw is that the higher percentage of rock and inverts in my tank leads to the smaller tank being far more stable. so yes, the science is behind you on this one, but i have alot of personal exerience to go against it. in general, fte studying many examples, i can safely say ive found more smaller tanks to be stable than large tanks (in marine environments anyway, and all the stable tanks have had huge amounts of rock and inverts.... coincidence? i think not).


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2010)

Fishyfins said:


> i hear what your saying, and i believe alot of it simply comes down to experience, or just pure science.
> 
> what you say about trace elements is correct. when i said dangerous, i do mean such things as iodine. ive known far too many fishkeepers who have overdosed on such trace elements (on the advice of shops and the internet), and lost their whole tanks as a result. to me personally, who only keeps a selecton of soft corals and small motile inverts, i generally dont bother with anything but calcium, and the trace elements in the salt mix i use. if your keeping SPS corals, then it does need to be done properly, with adding the chemicals, and im sure many reefkeepers would employ more costly methods when doing this... it just makes sense to do so.
> 
> ...


Each to their own eh bud? :thumbup:


----------



## Fishyfins (Feb 28, 2009)

each to their own indeed. not wanting to argue, but i enjoy a good debate on the science of marine keeping. its so difficult to find someone worthy of this discussion with, so when i find someone who actually does know what they are talking about, i tend to go mad XD. 

and for the record, me and my dads tanks are in the same house, and we use the same RO unit for our water. water composition in each tank is identical. the only difference between them other than the invert and fish stocks, are that mine has half the volume.


----------



## hawksport (Dec 27, 2009)

Fishyfins said:


> and all the stable tanks have had huge amounts of rock and inverts.... coincidence? i think not).


The key to a stable marine system is good quality live rock.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2010)

Fishyfins said:


> each to their own indeed. not wanting to argue, but i enjoy a good debate on the science of marine keeping


Nothing like a good scientific debate, brings some life into the quieter part of the forum.


----------

