# 20G L vs 29G for Low Tech Planted - Help me choose



## zfarsh (Apr 7, 2011)

Hi,

hoping to get feedbacks from those having had both a 20G Long and a 29G tank, where the difference is the height, one being 12" to 13", and the other one being about 18".

The tank will be low tech planted, with regular 6,500 bulbs. Plants will be alot of Anubias nana, and some sags. I may also put some java ferns. 
The plants wont really require much maintenance.

The fish will be dwarf cories and some guppies / white cloud mountain minnows and some amano shrimps and ramshorns / mts snails.

I have never bought a 20g or 29g, only have had 10g and 75g mainly, and currently only 2x 10g tanks which i wanted to turn into 1x 20g or 29g.

Filters will be a combination of HOB and Cannister.

Just wanting to hear some thoughts.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

Lower height is definitely better. If you're going low tech, you want to squeeze as much light as possible from your bulbs, and high height will make it much more difficult to get enough light to the substrate.


----------



## zfarsh (Apr 7, 2011)

solarz said:


> Lower height is definitely better. If you're going low tech, you want to squeeze as much light as possible from your bulbs, and high height will make it much more difficult to get enough light to the substrate.


Thanks. I see the concern here is then the dwarf sags (and some vals), which I know you know very well since I got a lot from you years back!!! lol

Currently using the black sand high substrate which I never needed to replace, but will be mixing it now with playsand 50/50, so I guess that and the lower light from the 18" vs 12" height of the 29g tank might make the dwarf sags become paler color.

That said, after more careful thought, I think maybe dwarf sag dark green nice color and growth can be sacrificed. The anubias will be the center of attention, as I have a lot. The thing with them is they can get algae, and usually I had them in shades in my 75g tank, but in my 10g, I toned down the lights as much as possible and they are not gaining much algae eventhough direct light is getting to them, but those top ones do become more pale.

I believe you have a 20g, or used to. Have you had a 29g too? How do you feel in general about it? I can imagine for plant keeping, the 20g is actually better as the hand can go to bottom for upkeeping much easier, but in my case, I don't think there would be a need, or at least I think...


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

zfarsh said:


> Thanks. I see the concern here is then the dwarf sags (and some vals), which I know you know very well since I got a lot from you years back!!! lol
> 
> Currently using the black sand high substrate which I never needed to replace, but will be mixing it now with playsand 50/50, so I guess that and the lower light from the 18" vs 12" height of the 29g tank might make the dwarf sags become paler color.
> 
> ...


Hey, if you've still got those vals I sold you way back, I'd be interested in buying some back! I can't seem to find that specific species anymore.

I would say avoid play sand. I know it's cheap, but IME it compacts too much, which can wreak havoc on water chemistry long term.

The 20g I have is a 20-high, wich is 16" in height. Already, I feel that's too high.

I've grown dwarf sag in low light, and they just tend to grow feebly and multiply very slowly. If you're planning to carpet them, you need medium light.


----------



## zfarsh (Apr 7, 2011)

Alright, I will check if I actually do still have the vals in my tank, and if so, I will just bring some next time I come to North York to visit some familia on the weekend.

For the sand, is there an alternate that is still sand, but less darker than the black sand from Flourite or Ecocomplete (forgot which one I have, but it is the one that doesn't require cleaning and has liquid inside the bag when you buy it). I was thinking of switching from that by mixing play sand with it, or maybe a more dark brown sand, but it has to be sand, not gravel or fine gravel.


----------



## w4x (Dec 13, 2014)

Would also second the 20g long.

Shorter tanks will give you greater options if you decide to try out other plants without having to invest in better lighting.

If worried about algae, you can always lower the amount of time your lights are on.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

zfarsh said:


> Alright, I will check if I actually do still have the vals in my tank, and if so, I will just bring some next time I come to North York to visit some familia on the weekend.


No worries, I won't actually need it for a few months as I'm planning on moving.


----------



## BillD (Jun 5, 2006)

The problem with the 20 long, is that it is shallow,more so when you add substrate, so limits the plants you can use. A 25, which is usually easier to find, has the same footprint, is a better choice if you don't want the depth of a 29/30.


----------



## zfarsh (Apr 7, 2011)

BillD said:


> The problem with the 20 long, is that it is shallow,more so when you add substrate, so limits the plants you can use. A 25, which is usually easier to find, has the same footprint, is a better choice if you don't want the depth of a 29/30.


Thanks Bill. Which 25 do you mean? I look at online sizes, and the 25g has a height of 20", which is more than the 29g at 18"

I went to big al yesterday, and we liked the 20g Long and 29G, but was leaning towards 29G actually as I want a bit more height than the 10g / 20L for having driftwood and anubias on it, and still have a bit of black wall visible on top of it. Also, gives me the potential best bioload or at least best stability, though I never really had any trouble with my 10g to be honest, so maybe not a big factor.

That said, as I am on the border for length wise on the 20L and 29G (again, very nice sizes both of them), I am also now reconsidering the standard 20 gallon high, which is 24 x 12 x 16, and potentially downsizing in plants and maybe fish too vs the other two options.

Gonna be a though one to choose.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

zfarsh said:


> Thanks Bill. Which 25 do you mean? I look at online sizes, and the 25g has a height of 20", which is more than the 29g at 18"
> 
> I went to big al yesterday, and we liked the 20g Long and 29G, but was leaning towards 29G actually as I want a bit more height than the 10g / 20L for having driftwood and anubias on it, and still have a bit of black wall visible on top of it. Also, gives me the potential best bioload or at least best stability, though I never really had any trouble with my 10g to be honest, so maybe not a big factor.
> 
> ...


What's your available foot print?


----------



## BillD (Jun 5, 2006)

My 25 is 14" tall, and the 30 is 18"'.


----------



## zfarsh (Apr 7, 2011)

Alright, now considering the Marineland Cube 27G, 20" x 18" x 20". Need advise on lighting for such a thing....

The space where the aquarium goes has now less width, and is on a corner. Physically a regular 20L or 29g can fit, but just, and it sets the TV vs coach off, and before we get it and guests come over and affect my wife's decision, I have to be proactive, so either going with regular 20G or with the Cube, which the later gives me even better space and goes well with corners.

I know scaping will be though, have some ideas, but yeah, nothing beats the advantage of length aquarium, but I am now in this new direction. Not sure what to do for lighting though... I have always used cheap solutions on all my tanks, even shop light for my 75g.


----------

