Aquatic Plant Forum banner

An (excited) word about filtration

97K views 313 replies 52 participants last post by  BriDroid 
#1 · (Edited)
I got excited or something discussing cheap and powerful canister filters made in China. So I jolted down some words of wisdom. Could be an eye opener for someone.

A few details have been ommited. Like what kind of glue is best to keep your fish in one place after you hook up a crazy powerful pump to your filter and have 0 algae issues.

Here it is:

It really annoys me to see filters labeled "for XXX gal. size tank". That's the dumbest claim ever.

Virtually all canister filters on the market are equipped with motors that are completely inadequate. Or rather - the motors belong to filters that are at least 1/2 the size of the housing.

Here's how it works:
There is a publication, a scientific one, about the water turnover through a filter that will provide 100% filtration. Running 1 tank volume an hour through the filter does not mean you have filtered all the water in the tank once. That's because the water being sucked by the filter is a mix of filtered and unfiltered water.

So, to make this simple - the water in an aquarium needs to pass through the filter 9.2 times in order to be filtered 100%.

Ok, so for my 100 gal. tank I need a filter that pumps 900 gph? No. I actually need more. I need about 40% more flow because of the resistance of the filter media, hoses etc. So to filter 100% of the water in a 100 gal. tank once every hour I need a filter pump that runs 1200 gph.

Wow!

And there is something else. There is an optimal volume of the filter media in relation to the tank volume. It is 8-10% of the tank volume. So for my 100 gal. tank I need a filter that holds 10 gals. of media.

Another "wow"!

And of course there is more. The filter media area is important. Meaning that I cannot get the smallest cheapest canister filter, hook up a 1200 gph pump to it and cover all bases. Simply put the volume of the filter and the pump output need to match. For my 100 gal. tank I need a filter that holds 10 gals of media and 1200 gph pump. But these 10 gals of media better not be stacked high. They better be spread as wide as possible. The thickness should not be more than 6.5 inches.

Wow...

No, that's not the end. There is a scary part to it all too. The same bacteria that happily eats your fishes' waste and makes Nitrate from stinky and toxic Ammonia will actually do the opposite if the flow through the filter media is too slow. So on Monday my bacteria eats Ammonia and produces Nitrate. On Tuesday my filter is slightly clogged and some of the bacteria now makes Ammonia from the Nitrate that their buddies produce. On Wednesday... you get it - most of the bacteria could be making Ammonia.

More... The bacteria in the biofilter is not just bacteria. It's all sorts of animals that gradually evolve and establish themselves. Think of it as the History of the World. Civilizations rose and fell. It's never the same. Now imagine what would happen if someone swept the place clean every 100 years or so. Started anew. There will be no real history. No humans. No internet!!! My point is - when you diligently rinse your filter every week or every month you are doing exactly that - resetting the development of your biofilter. Harming it. What is right to do is to choose the proper media that does not clog easily and does not need frequent rinsing.

Yes there is more... but enough said.

All of that makes my head hurt. Because when I see filters labeled "for up to 290 gal. tank" it's as if we all understand the conditions. And we don't. I bet this is the first post that explains filtration somewhat clearly to you. I've been in this hobby since 1981 and only the last year heard about all these things.

Basically if the filtration is properly setup you do not need mechanical filtration. You will seldom fight algae. There will be wars and fails and victories that you will never see - your bacteria and Co. will take care of it all for you.

Or one can just enjoy this hobby. It is not said we all must do things "the right way". It's about having fun, right.

--Nikolay
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Interesting stuff Niko! That makes a great deal of sense to me from a scientific/ecological point of view. I'm working on a reply.

Cheers,
Phil
 
#3 ·
I saw a comparison study of flow in gph on the net between filters. It said basically that when you add right angles and such and don't use the assumed head height you will not get the same gph. It also said that all pretty much all the filters except the Eheims were rated empty without media. The Eheims were true to the average ghp rated but of course all were tested new and clean.

Your article was quite interesting...
 
#4 ·
Really good article. Thanks for writing it. It got me kind of interested in setting up a gigantic filter for an aquarium to see how it worked. It seems to me that the many people, especially inexperienced aquarists, who diligently sterilize their filters are not only just wasting their time, but they are probably harming their aquarium too!
The Eheims were true to the average ghp rated but of course all were tested new and clean.
Eheims are the best!
 
#5 ·
gives me something to think about and gives me the answer to what is happening with me 55g. I only have a 205 rated for a 40 gallon it. flow is 180gph, now put media in the filter and I get it goes down to 120-150gph and the media is packed.... looks like I should find a 405 or another 205...
 
#6 ·
I believe an important decision is what kind of filtration you want done. If you want mechanical filtration, you will have to clean it somewhat frequently because it will clog by definition. That is why I prefer prefilters on my canister filters. I use a sponge prefilter on the intake. I can easily remove it and clean it out. I can rinse with chlorinated water as I am not concerned with bio filtration at that stage. That essentially leaves the canister as a bio filter. I don't clean it unless for some reason the flow gets too slow (because it does get some very fine particles despite the prefilter).

I agree that the bacteria in the filter (and everywhere in the tank) can and will change over time. Basically they change based on the conditions. If you have a lot of amonia, one kind of bacteria will multiply, consume ammonia and create nitrite. And another bacteria grows in the presence of nitrite to create nitrate. But in absence of food, these bacteria colonies fail.

And for us planted tank types, hopefully with a reasonable amount of plants vs. fish, there isn't too much amonia getting to the canister anyway. The end result may be that the canister mostly provides water movememt, so the ammonia gets to the plants, oxygen from the surface to the water column, etc.

Just my thoughts.

Bob
 
#7 ·
another problem is my 55 was lightly planted. hopelly i can stuff it with plants, and get stuff growing... and maybe nitrobactor and nitrosonomonas aren't doing there job right....
 
#8 ·
Bob,

I've found I've had the most success using a method similar to yours (and Amano's). The best results I've achieved have come when using medium sized lava rock from Home Despot and only a single coarse foam insert.

Some brief thoughts on change in filter efficacy over time- As mulm accumulates in the filter it changes the flow dynamics within the canister. Over time we'll get increasing volume of organic-rich areas which receive ever decreasing flow of oxygenated water. Those are the zones of ammonia genesis. The short of it is, as oxygen decreases the microfauna start using nitrogen as their electron donor rather than oxygen and that leads to ammonia and other nasties. Add to that an ample source of carbon from the trapped mulm and microfauna that are tolerant of hypoxic or anoxic conditions have a field day!

Moral of the story? Use coarse media to ensure maximum throughflow and don't rinse your media in tap water. Oh, and keep that sponge media clean!
 
#9 ·
Bob,

I've found I've had the most success using a method similar to yours (and Amano's). The best results I've achieved have come when using medium sized lava rock from Home Despot and only a single coarse foam insert.
How did you set this up? Did you just take the lava rocks and place them into your filter? Did you crush them up before hand? (So they look like Amano's Bio Rio?) How about a picture of what the media looks like? This sounds like a really great filter media, but would like some more information before I go rip things apart...
 
#10 ·
Cool I like it. Niko you mention that it is important not to stack the media to high and the thickness should be no more than 6.5". Can you elaborate on this please. I love the info and thank you for all you have posted on this subject it has been a great education for me. I also have to admit that when filter makers label there products as "rated for xx amount of gallons I always wondered rated by who and how.
 
#11 ·
Find Dieter's site. It's in German.

There you will read that the filtration through a Poret filter foam happens only in the first 1 cm or so of the entire sponge. How they figured that out I don't know. But it basically means that the media must not be too thick because it makes no sense.

Biomedia this thin presents a logical problem - your filter canister needs to acomodate a mat that is thin but with its total volume being 10% of your aquarium volume. That's not our typical canister - cylindrical or box shaped. If you want a container that will fit a thin and big mat then you are looking for something like a shallow box. And distributing the flow over the entire biofilter media is another problem to solve.

So the Japanese once again have figured it out. Bigger size biomedia with enough gaps to let the water channel through it. Does not clog. Doesn't need frequent rinsing. Does not have pores that are too fine. Fits in a canister that is cylindrical, not some kind of funky shallow box. The pump is pressure rated - if there is any clogging it ramps up and maintains the flow as if nothing happened. And the pump is external - so no magetic fields bother the living system. Believe or laugh at magnetic fields affecting your aquarium you have to admit that the Japanese know more than you imagine.

A planted tank is a very different beast from a fish only tank or a reef tank. I could actually say that keeping the sytem semi-dirty, hitting it with a lot of light and CO2 and achieving 0 algae is a completely crazy task which is actually achievable. But one needs to hammer it in their head that everything works as a system. Buy yourself an expensive ADA canister filter and tell me if it solves all the issues you have. It won't. And the opposite - you can replace that expensive filter with another one - just like ADG has successfully done for some time now and their planted tanks still work out fine. That's because that fancy filter is part of a whole system. A carefully designed one. And if you undersand it you can alter, rescue or mess it up at will.

--Nikolay
 
#12 ·
A planted tank is a very different beast from a fish only tank or a reef tank. I could actually say that keeping the sytem semi-dirty, hitting it with a lot of light and CO2 and achieving 0 algae is a completely crazy task which is actually achievable.
I have to agree with Niko running the take little dirty works. I get a higher concentration of Nitrates that the plants use. I watch closely for the different algae types that appear and adjust accordingly. I'm running the high lights and co2 injection. What I find my system needing the most added to it is more potassium and micro. The rest of the macro is by product of the bio load.

Back to the topic of gph, another thing that will affect gph is buildup with in your hoses. I experience this with my goldfish tank.
 
#13 · (Edited)
A planted tank "system" is dirty because we maintain some nutrients in the water column. To me it doesn't matter if that's the widely accepted 5-10 N, and 0.5-1 Phosphate or 30 N and 2P. All of these concentrations provide enough food for algae if they can find a way to grow.

If you open any AquaJournal from the beginning of time till now and look at the tank specs you will see the same thing - zero nutrients. Of course we know that the Japanese add nutrients. But it's only in amounts that the plants can eat up quickly. So in a way they do not keep a "semi-dirty" system like we do. We let Nutrients linger - EI, PPS or your own version of them. Funny enough noone can say that EI or PPS grows better plants than ADA with their seemingly nutrient depleted tanks.

How all that has to do with filtration? Once again - it is all a system and it works together. As I said - if you understand it you can tweak it to your liking. Here's an example - we all know these pictures and videos from Amano's gallery in Niigata. I always wondered how on Earth they keep those powerful halide lights on all the time so every visitor throughout the day sees the tanks well lit, at their best. From what I understand the halides are on all the time. Makes no sense. But really it does - if you have a way to tweak the system you can do seemingly impossible things:



So - filtration that works + careful fertilizing make a seemingly impossible task work: Strong lights for 8 hours a day, no crazy plant growth issues, no algae. Some years ago I experimented with EI and strong light for 8 hours a day. I had pictures showing how my stem plants grew 18 inches in 2-1/2" days. Impossible to maintain.

About the filter being 8-10% of the tank volume: Here are some pictures of the smallest ADA tanks. Each is equipped with an ugly Eheim and fancy "invisible" tubing setup. Note the volume of the filter in relation to the volume of the tank:



By the way - ADA may not exactly follow the general rules I talk about here. Most of us have heard about larger ADA tanks not being lit as bright as small ones. We don't exacly know why but they probably have a good reason. Trying to copy their system could be frustration also because it's dynamic - for example the filter has different combinations of media in different phases of the tank development. Normally we don't really change the medias. But it sounds pretty logical to match the needs of the tank with the filtration media.

By the way - about a lot of flow, dirty hoses, etc. I just installed a 640 gph pump on one of my filters. But because my plumbing is dumb (long pipes and 90 degree angle connections) all I get from that new pump is 257 gph measured at the outflow. My point is - the assumption that your flow is much less than what you may think is probably correct for most planted tanks. And if we add the blocking of the flow by the plants then it really becomes clear that we need to know more about why exactly ADA has chosen that funky looking Lily pipe outflow. What exactly is the targeted pattern of the water movement?

Here are a few videos potentially related to the question of water flow in a planted tank. Or maybe the videos are just amusing:






Tex_Gal, you NEED several laminar flow jets on your pool! Tell me you don't after watching these videos! :D

--Nikolay
 
#14 ·
That laminar flow is incredible. Yes! I want some!


I'm not sure how it works. The first couple examples were powered by a simple water hose. Wikapedia says laminar flow occurs at less velocities, yet it looks like more water. It also say higher velocities makes a turbulent flow. It sure looks the opposite of what it is.

Amazing that you cut your flow down by half just with just the plumbing. I guess bigger is really better....:rolleyes: :p
 
#15 ·
Great discussion here! You guys should consider moving it to the main forum for more visibility.

Niko, your initial post explains what I discovered a long time ago that if I clean my cannister thoroughly, I get cloudy water for the next 4-6 days. Even cleaning out only the sponges creates a little cloudiness, but to a much lesser extent/duration.

So, perhaps one of the 'take homes' of this is to always buy a much larger filter than you think you need.
 
#16 ·
I do not want this discussion in the main forum. I want it right here in the DFWAPC sub-forum, where I posted it.

I have my reasons for it. Please do not move it.

Always get larger filtration - yes. But only in conjunction with many other factors. If there is a "take home lesson" that is it - all factors need to work together. Hooking up a larger filter may or may not work good. If we continue missing the big picture we will always have tanks that work and tanks that don't.

I started this topic in the spur of the moment. And I have opened up like never before about the information that I've have had access to for some time now. So far I only urged people to go out and look for the information themselves. There has been somewhat of an interest in my hints and suggestions. So I want to keep this new information local, DFW Club mainly topic so it benefits us as a club. Anyone interested can for my "oh-so-great" posts right here.

My goal is to shed more light about setting up a replicable unproblematic planted tanks. Setup that works every time. That we can all replicate over and over. If ADA, ADG, Oliver Knott and others can do it why is it that US hobbyists as a whole can't? From what I understand ADG is gearing up to put out a lot of useful information. I hope it is exactly what this hobby needs (no more ordering rocks Japanese style and how to use cardboard to divide dry gravel in a cool way). I also hope that if ADG does that it does it in a way that is not leaving the information there and not creating interest in it.

A comparison with the state of the marine aquarium hobby could help us see the planted tank hobby in a more realistic light. The marine aquarium hobby - the reef side of it has started to experiment more with aquascaping just in the last few years. I see more and more "aquascaped" reef tanks. Reefers have knowledge, equipment, and are not stingy. The planted tank hobby is the opposite (at least in the US) - we start with the aquascaping, still haven't figured out the technical part, and we are tight with our money. 10 years at least and we have moved ahead just a little bit. And definitely not in terms of the tanks being replicable. Things don't need to be expensive - they just need to be done with more insight.

--Nikolay
 
#20 ·
Phil, thanks for the explanantion. Through a strange and fortuante Craig's List swap, I am the new owner of a used Eheim 2217. I know next to nothing about these filters!

--Michael
You're welcome Michael. I hope you enjoy the filter and get many years of use out of it. Mine were in prime working order after five years of use, right up to the point where I had to sell them.
 
#19 ·
On the topic of ADA technique/system and nutrient availablilty. I'll tell you what, they're not doing anything that hasn't already been around for millions of years. They just applied what's going on in healthy natural aquatic systems to a glass container.

In most cases, robust, algae poor, communities of aquatic plants grow in water that is depleted of phosphorus and to a lesser extent, nitrogen. Think about the San Marcos, the plants there are growing gangbusters and that water comes from deep in the earth. It's probably some of the cleanest untreated water in Texas! So why the hell are the plants doing so well? Their nutrient source is the sediment/soil, not the water column. (Sound familiar Drinda?)

Going back to Aqua Soil, it's packed full of degradable organics that provide nutrients at the location aquatics take them up the most, their roots. (Dian Smith, PhD and R. Michael Smart, PhD, personal communication)

What about all those funky powders and stuff ADA wants to sell us? Isn't it a bunch of crap? No. What are some of them; bacteria, Iron, Magnesium, micronutrients, etc. These are all elements which tend to get sequestered in aquatic sediments and are only available in usable form in the very top 0.5-2.0cm of the sediment. Anything else is locked away until the plants change the oxidation state of the sediment around their roots, which causes the nutrients to change into a soluble and plant-usable form.

Aqua Soil isn't a complete diet for plants; it's pretty good for an initial burst of macros and is amazing for root development. The other additives are what completes the picture and balances the diet, if you will. Once the initial nutrient release (mineralizing Aqua Soil, that was for you AaronT and Sean!) and algae bloom the water column is nutrient depleted but the substrate is enriching constantly with time. That's also why there are different formulations of BrightyK and Green Gain to be used as the tank ages. They're formulated to suppliment the natural processes in the tank which influence nutrient availability.

Inorganic nitrogen as nitrate is the one macronutrient which doesn't bind to substrates and tends to remain in the water column. However, regular input of degradable material such as feces and excess food, into the substrate and slow release of N from degrading organics in the Aqua Soil are a source of N in the root zone. That's why you don't see much about nitrogen supplimentation in the ADA literature or hear about it when talking to Amano about water column supplimentation.

It all goes back to the original ADA philosophy of taking queues from nature and modifying them to fit the needs of an aquarium. "Only man's artifice over nature could produce such beauty".

Sure, even the ADA gallery tanks have algae, but from all appearances their systems are supremely balanced and managable in comparison to methods developed in the US. "Better living through science" isn't always better. Nature's got a hell of a lot more experience than human science.
 
#22 ·
San Marcos.

For those that have never gone or never seen pictures here it is. And read the comments:

http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/SanMarcosRiverMay172008#

In these 2 pictures one can almost be sure that the water flows in a laminar way. Big flow + little turbulence. Sounds like a Japanese filter maybe?:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/SanMarcosRiverMay172008#5201553071474435426
http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/SanMarcosRiverMay172008#5201553075769402738

San Marcos. Wanna go? In my subtle machiavellian engineerings with the goal to increase the activity of our club I think I have become too transparent here :D

We can organize that trip this coming year. Really, jokes aside, it is a wonderful place to visit. Let's discuss that in a separate thread.

--Nikolay
 
#23 ·
schliterbon is on the way... can we go to the water park too?
 
#24 ·
So would it be accurate to say that the older and the more established a tank is, assuming they have a decent fish load, the water column may be kept leaner? This would assume the build up of mulm, and nutrients in the gravel, again assuming one doesn't gravel vac.

I have no experience with the ADA system, so what I am about to say may be totally off base, and if so, please feel free to correct. From what I have read, it seems that one of the main ingredients that is often added is 'Brighty K', which I assume to be potassium? I don't much see folks adding any other macros. Would the rationale for this be as Phil said, the biochemical breakdown of food, feces etc doesn't provide sufficient K for the plants?

Another point/question regarding the basic chemistry involved in NH3/NO3 etc. One always hears that in a heavily planted tank, NH3 is not a problem because the plants will uptake it before it gets to any dangerous build up. So when the filter microbes change their course and start producing NH3, why wouldn't it get metabolized by the plants? Or are we talking about an extreme which WILL cause issues?

Niko, seeing the pics of the San Marcos really hits something home for me, which I should have been aware of for a while. Living in North Florida where we have tons of springs and crystal clear spring fed rivers, you also see the beautiful lush growth of plants. Rock hard water from a limestone aquifer and very low NO3 and PO4 measurable levels, if at all. So, you're right, where do the nutrients come from -- the soil/sediment in the river bed. But of course, there is also one very major difference in these beautiful spring fed river systems, they have a fairly limited number of plants growing in them. Whereas, we try to incorporate every known type of plant from all around the world into our little mini-environments.

OK, enough ramblings. :)
 
#25 ·
Bert,

As long as there are ample sediment-bound nutrients to balance out the reduced water column nutrients, absolutely! Here's some food for thought though, the longer the mulm has been in the substrate, the lower the amount of labile nutrients it contains. I'll have to talk with my boss about this for specifics; she's done some substrate and water column nutrient depletion studies using Hydrilla and Myriophyllum. However, based on things I've learned so far, the long term benefit of mulm in an aquarium substrate isn't so much nutrient release as it is nutrient retention.

As all the degradable compounds are broken down the consituents (mineralization) glom onto charged particles in the substrate. Organic matter and clay in particular are good for this. This is where CEC comes into play.

Furthermore, the breakdown of mulm and other organic matter changes the reduction-oxidation (redox) state of the substrate which, in turn, affects the sequestration of mineral nutrients in the substrate. Briefly, the less oxygen in the substrate, the higher the amount of sequestered or plant-unavailable Fe, Mg, and P; up to the point where the anaerobic bacteria begin using those for metabolism.

Potassium can be pretty common in the water column of natural waters and it certainly doesn't hurt to suppliment it in larger doses in an aquarium. I've noticed that Amano seems to replace the substate in his tanks every year or so. Based on my experience with Aqua Soil that seems to be a reasonable length of time for the nutrients to be depleted in the substrate if no water column fertilization is done; especially nitrogen. It's just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet nitrogen is the time-limiting factor in 100% ADA setups. After a certain time AS just doesn't have anything else to give, especially in high growth systems.

I did a little look-see here at the lab using two year old Amazonia that I'd used in a tank where I supplimented the water column as if it were inert and saw very high concentrations of phosphorus. I'd dried and ground the AS into a fine powder, put 10g of it into 50mL of pure water, mixed it and let it sit for an hour. We use a colorimetric/absorbance method for P analysis here and the supernatant from the AS was far far darker than our highest standard of 0.6mg/L.

With that concentration of P in the substrate and water column supplimentation of K; N is the only major nutrient left to consider.

I believe the real trick is to balance light input with nutrient availablility if you're wanting to run a leaner water column. It's certainly doable in a high light/high growth system but there is likely to be a statue of limitations on how long the substrate will be able to sustain that level of plant growth on its own.


All of this being said, we've all seen the results ADA and ADG achieve with the ADA method. Likewise, we all know how effective EI or similar dosing strategies can be. In my mind the differences between the two methods is one of stability. From all I've seen ADA systems tend to be very stable after the initial break in period. I've been using EI/PMDD or a similar strategy for close to 12 years now and have found my aquaria to be less stable or forgiving of change than when I've used Aqua Soil or a soil-based substrate.
 
#26 ·
Taking on the topic of ammonia, I disagree with the assertion that they're not a problem in planted tanks. After lots of observation and a couple limited and not particularly scientific experiments, I believe ammonia to be the main contributing factor to algae growth. Yes, plants to take up ammonia and it is an effective source of nitrogen in non-aquatic systems. However, every time I've seen ammonia supplimented or haven't cleaned my filter for some time I've seen an increased amount of algae.

I think we're both blessed and cursed by our plants. That they do take up ammonia is a good thing; however, that uptake retards or reduces the efficacy of our filters' biological contribution. Bert's observations of getting cloudy water after cleaning his filters hits this directly. Ammonia levels in many tanks are too low to support a robust population of nitrifying bacteria, so every time there's a change to the filter the tank cycles again or algae proliferate as the ecosystem seeks balance.

We can also see this happen when our plants aren't as healthy. Healthy plants are able to take up, store, and modify the TOXIC ammonia. Unhealthy plants aren't able to do so as effectively. Coupled with the reduced microfauna populations in our filters, the increased concentrations of ammonia signal algal spores to germinate. **This is an hypothesis, not a statement of fact based on a focused investigation.** However, my observations over a long period seem to support the hypothesis.

Bert,

The anaerobic or hypoxic zones in a dirty filter produce more than ammonia. It would be my guess that those compounds, in conjunction with increased ammonia concentrations, are what negatively impact the health of a planted aquarium. Remember, ammonia is toxic to plants just as it is to animals. The difference being plants have a mechanism to take up, store, and change the chemical structure of ammonia into a form that is not toxic and usable by the plant. Since ammonia is one of the initial nitrogenous byproducts of decomposition, plants have needed to find a way to capitalize on that source of N before it's used by other organisms. The negative charge of ammonia and nitrate ions keeps them from being sorbed onto soil particles. They both flush relatively easily through soils and are fairly transient compared to phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and iron. It's a "use it now or lose it" situation. That being said, it's easy for concentrations of ammonia to reach toxic levels or concentrations where the plants are unable to sequester it if there's no mechanical or biochemical mechanism for neutralizing it.

Cheers,
Phil
 
#27 ·
Thanks for your comments, and the chemistry explanations, Phil. It's been a long time for me since freshman chemistry. :) Interesting point about the high phosphorus levels in the Amazonia, and it does speak as to why there is limited water column supplementation in ADA systems.

One question - in your comments, you mention that the nutrients in the ADA substrates deplete after about one year, yet you comment on an increased stability of these types of set ups over EI/PPS (or whatever) types of set ups. Did I miss something? If you have depletion after a year or so, does one then switch to the water column fert routines in order to continue using the same substrate? Or are you saying it is necessary to change out your substrate every year or so with ADA systems? For me, that would be a deal breaker. First, I can't afford it, secondly, it's a lot of work. I can't argue with their results, they're fantastic, but (my analogy here :) )not everyone can afford to drive a BMW.

If I understood correctly, the build up of mulm in the substrate then would be a good thing over the long term, as long as one doesn't generate anaerobic zones. Several years ago, I was doing a massive replant in a long established 10 gal tank. I pulled up a huge, thick stand of C. wendtii and apparently it was sitting over an anaerobic spot. The smell of H2S which came out was potent, and surprising, considering it was only a 10 gal tank. The roots over that area were black, and probably the whole stand would have died in the near future, had I not pulled it up when I did. MTS to the rescue?

I agree with your comments about the differences between a tank with healthy plants being much more able to 'handle the bumps', so to speak. I am a full believer in 'healthy plants, make for a healthy tank and fish'. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :thumbsup:
 
#29 · (Edited)
Here's how it works:
There is a publication, a scientific one, about the water turnover through a filter that will provide 100% filtration. Running 1 tank volume an hour through the filter does not mean you have filtered all the water in the tank once. That's because the water being sucked by the filter is a mix of filtered and unfiltered water.
I'm searching for this publication, can you let me know if it is available online? thx

These are some interesting numbers you have posted, and I am just trying to get HANDLE on them.
v = tank volume
filter gph = v * 9.2
filter volume = .1 * v

This means that my 250gph, 6L canister filter, rated for up to 150 G tank, is grossly undersized for my 67G of water in my 75G tank!?! CRAZY...
 
#30 ·
Niko,

OK, my head hurts. For a simple guy like me maybe we can put this in terms that even I can understand. So my 65gal tank uses an Eheim 2217, which is rated at 220 gph. Here is an illustration from their web site about the proper charging of the filter with media:


As you can see, it is quite densely packed. Would you suggest that completely filling the canister with only bio balls would dramatically increase flow and efficiency of the biological filtration? Or perhaps bio balls with a single sponge type mat on top that gets rinsed occasionally?

Tex Guy

BTW... I was very impressed with your San Marcos photo set. That is from a different trip than the one we took. I think I can speak for Tex Gal that we are ready to go again.

Another BTW... I have tried several times to sprout rice to plant in a tank to no avail. Anybody been successful at that?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top