# Bio Filtration



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

We read almost everyday â€œbeneficial bacteria grows on all of the surfaces in our systemâ€


----------



## planenut007 (Mar 21, 2009)

Very interesting, with all that said it would stand to reason that the only need for a filter is to move water and to polish.
I think I will do a test, I have a few power heads laying around, I am going to cycle a 30 gal and add some fish with only powerheads, no filter and see what the outcome is.
Some rock work and substrate should provide enough surface area.
I will cycle with a seasoned filter then remove it, leaving only the powerheads.
Proper water changes should get rid of the floaties.


----------



## cichlidfeesh (Apr 6, 2009)

How about beneficial bacteria doing well in filters because of all the stuff they suck up. Filters hold on to food, poo, really everything. Wouldnâ€™t the bacteria thrive here because itâ€™s nearest to their constant food source?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

cichlidfeesh said:


> How about beneficial bacteria doing well in filters because of all the stuff they suck up. Filters hold on to food, poo, really everything. Wouldnâ€™t the bacteria thrive here because itâ€™s nearest to their constant food source?


Thatâ€™s a good point and may hold more weight than Iâ€™ve given it creditâ€¦

I have to wonder what % of the ammonia comes from the fish directly and what % comes from biodegrading wasteâ€¦

I would also wonder what % of the ammonia produced by biodegrading waste in the filter is immediately grabbed by bacteria and what % makes itâ€™s way through the filter return and is then â€˜consumedâ€™ either elsewhere in the system or on itâ€™s next trip through the filterâ€¦

I also know I hear a lot of people suggest they use one filter â€œmostly for bioâ€


----------



## bntbrl (Apr 23, 2009)

My wife was using those plastic sheets with the square holes in it for something. I saw it and thought about it having more surface area than a solid flat sheet. Im not sure how much more per se surface area it would have, but I thought that if you set it up like a beehive box where you had several sheets like 5mm apart or maybe a little more to accomodate waterflow, if it wouldnt work as a filter in the back of a tank like a ten gallon. The holes provoding that some circulation trapped particles of waste, the baccteria would colonize oin the plastic sheet and the detritus and effectively make a sponge filter without the sponge. More like a prallel filter or a grid filter. I imagine that this would need some slower water movement to circulate the water around the grids.


----------



## harveyb27 (Dec 15, 2008)

Toby_H said:


> I have to wonder what % of the ammonia comes from the fish directly and what % comes from biodegrading waste&#8230;
> 
> I would also wonder what % of the ammonia produced by biodegrading waste in the filter is immediately grabbed by bacteria and what % makes it's way through the filter return and is then 'consumed' either elsewhere in the system or on it's next trip through the filter&#8230;
> 
> ...


I have to say this is actually a very interesting thread and glad i came across it. As far as the % for ammonia from the fish vs. ammonia from biodegrading waste goes. I beleive that it may be higher for the bipdegrading waste. The fish excrete thier "fish waste" which ultimately becomes biodegrading waste anyways. Some suggest that waste is also dispelled through breathing, but surely this is just a matter of carbon dioxide, which is outbalanced by gas exchanges at the water surface.

I have to mention that this option may be answered by the simple observation of transporting fish. The fish are able to travel overnight without any problems, which would suggest the direct ammonia % may be very low. When in a bag and there is waste that is rotting then the ammonia build up comes into play and is very lethal. In a bag where the waste is high and has had a lengthy time to rot then there is obviously going to be a high ammonia build up, compared to just the fish being in the bag. I guess it depends on the rate to which waste begins to build up into ammonia?

I must also mention that certain wet/dry filters that increase the amount of oxygen claim to increase the rate of the nitrate cycle. The increased oxygen provides for a richer environment for the nitrifying bacteria to break down ammonia and nitrite even faster. I personally have a eheim 2227 dedicated for "biological filtering". They showed, though i am just going by what the manufacturers say... that they do in fact break down waste faster then filters which do not have the wet/dry function. I personally believe this to be true.

I also think that loads of bacteria is located around and in the tank, away from the filters themselves. Though perhaps most of this may be contributing towards denitrification, where there is less oxygen availiable.

You may also want to consider sand and rocks that claim they "provide biological bacteria" (reefs etc., caribsea sands...)


----------



## harveyb27 (Dec 15, 2008)

planenut007 said:


> Very interesting, with all that said it would stand to reason that the only need for a filter is to move water and to polish.
> I think I will do a test, I have a few power heads laying around, I am going to cycle a 30 gal and add some fish with only powerheads, no filter and see what the outcome is.
> Some rock work and substrate should provide enough surface area.
> I will cycle with a seasoned filter then remove it, leaving only the powerheads.
> Proper water changes should get rid of the floaties.


All in the name of science! lol look forward to hearing the result/outcome.


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

If bio-media is clean and not sludged up with trapped waste it can be the most effecient place for bacteria to reside.
If it is really dirty than this will likely inhibit the efficiency of biological filtering thus causing bacteria to reside elsewhere.
This is probably why bacteria can establish and colonize on any surface as long as they can adhere to it and thrive on it.
Like Toby said, slower flow is better for bio so more ammonia is contacting the media at any given moment but as for polishing one would want to achieve a higher flow.

*planenut007*, you are correct.
I have friends that have only powerheads in their tanks(no filters) with heavy bio-loads.
Safe to say the bacteria is there in the gravel, walls, decor, etc.


----------



## harveyb27 (Dec 15, 2008)

smellsfishy1 said:


> *planenut007*, you are correct.
> I have friends that have only powerheads in their tanks(no filters) with heavy bio-loads.
> Safe to say the bacteria is there in the gravel, walls, decor, etc.


So does that mean filters and their biomedia is a load of rubbish? Maybe their only use is circulation?

What size are their tanks?


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

harveyb27 said:


> So does that mean filters and their biomedia is a load of rubbish? Maybe their only use is circulation?
> What size are their tanks?


No, it is not a load of rubbish.
If the bio-media is properly setup, maintained, and cleaned it can be the most ideal place for bacteria to post up at.
If it is dirty and the water flow passing through it is too fast it becomes less efficient.

This is probably why in some systems spikes don't occur when really dirty filters are cleaned from scratch or filters are removed completely.
Most of the bacteria is everywhere else but in the filter.
Plus, in a well established tank bacteria can re-populate very quickly.
In a matter of hours the bacteria is back at full strenght no doubt.

I have seen a 90 gallon with bala sharks, silver dollars, and many cichlids run on 1 powerhead.
All fish above 6 inches and well fed.
This tank did receive power water changes though.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

harveyb27 said:


> I have to mention that this option may be answered by the simple observation of transporting fish...


I have read many times that fish actually dispel ammonia in their breathing processâ€¦ I must confess, I have never tested water for ammonia after receiving a fish in the mailâ€¦ I would be very interested to hear results from someone who hasâ€¦



harveyb27 said:


> I must also mention that certain wet/dry filters that increase the amount of oxygen claim to increase the rate of the nitrate cycle...


I would like to point out in my original post I excluded wet/dry filters from my â€œBio media is hypeâ€


----------



## harveyb27 (Dec 15, 2008)

Surely the most benificial place for bacteria would be on the surface of waste, where it can directly eat away.

I actually read the denitrifying thread before reading this one lol :thumb:

Sorry i didnt notice you disclaimed wet/dry filters lol...


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

Think about it like this.
If the ammonia being produced is suspended in the water column and the filter is pulling water in, the ammonia can then be processed by the bacteria in the media.
At any flow rate the media is receiving more ammonia because the ammonia is coming in faster as opposed to water just slowly circulating through out the tank.
If you have super circulation then I guess you can achieve the same result on the other surfaces.
But this is unlikely since you don't have multiple powerheads pointed in multiple directions hitting every surface in the tank.

Secondly, fish produce a lot of ammonia as a by product of their respiration not just in their fecal matter.
The waste trapped in the media is dense enough to slow down flow rate decreasing the efficiency to break down ammonia.
That is why it needs to be clean and the reason we use mechanical media in front of bio-media.


----------



## harveyb27 (Dec 15, 2008)

But slowler rates within the filter are supposedly better for the bacteria.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

First off, I am supplying my side of this debate in friendly tones with a smile. Iâ€™m not saying â€œIâ€™m right and youâ€™re wrongâ€


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

harveyb27 said:


> But slowler rates within the filter are supposedly better for the bacteria.


Slower rate is better but if it is really slow than it isn't that helpful either.


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

Slower rates are better but if it is too slow than the rate at which the ammonia contacts the bacteria is slow as well.
I guess it needs a compromise, somewhere between not too slow and not too fast.
An ideal gph in filters is something I am going to research and look into now. :lol:

Sorry if I came off the wrong way Toby that wasn't how I tried to present my thoughts.
I too respect your thoughts and opinions and I consider you a very knowledgable member.

I agree with all of your statements which is why I continue to include why I think water flow is a very strong factor in the equation.
Too fast is not efficient but too slow is also not efficient.

You know what I just thought of: if you have clean media and counted the amount of bacteria located on that surface, couldn't it be possible for bacteria counts to change over the matter of days?
If the media begins to build up sludge and flow rate becomes compromised wouldn't bacteria want to relocate to a more ideal location and colonize there?
Just a thought, tell me what you guys think because from this point of view it would seem that during any given week the bacteria colonies could totally switch from one side of a tank to another.
Of course this is all hypothetical and not proven.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

smellsfishy1 said:


> Sorry if I came off the wrong way Toby that wasn't how I tried to present my thoughts.
> I too respect your thoughts and opinions and I consider you a very knowledgeable member.


You didnâ€™t come off harsh at all. I just wanted to clarify mood for your benefit as well as anyone else reading along since mood can often be misinterpreted in textâ€¦ I thoroughly enjoy these â€˜high endâ€™ discussions regarding the finer points of the hobby.



smellsfishy1 said:


> I agree with all of your statements which is why I continue to include why I think water flow is a very strong factor in the equation.
> Too fast is not efficient but too slow is also not efficient.


I see and agree with where you are coming from hereâ€¦

If itâ€™s too slow the bacteria does itâ€™s job and sits there bored waiting for the next bite of ammonia/nitrite to come throughâ€¦ If it comes in too fast the bacteria is eating one bite while 4 more fly past itâ€¦

But as Harvey was suggestingâ€¦ it makes sense bacteria will grow directly on biodegrading waste eating the ammonia as soon as it becomes available and therefore not being influenced by flow ratesâ€¦

I wonder if there is a flow rate at which the bacteria simply cannot catch the ammonia and the bacteria on the surfaces in that flow rate simply starve?



smellsfishy1 said:


> You know what I just thought of: if you have clean media and counted the amount of bacteria located on that surface, couldn't it be possible for bacteria counts to change over the matter of days?


From what I understand it could change over the course of hoursâ€¦

Iâ€™ve read that our bacteria has a â€œdoubling rateâ€


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

What if you look at it like an assembly line.
The employees are able to do so much work but the machines don't bring the work fast enough.
It reminds me of the phrase "time is money".


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

The way bacteria works really clicked for me when I started viewing it just like millions of little animals...

Some "eat" ammonia and "poop" nitrite...

Where others "eat" nitrite" and "poop" nitrate...

Just like a colony of animals, their population is limited by the local food supply...

Likewise they are also limited by available space...

When kept happy they multiply and prosper...

When conditions are barely met they survive but are less efficient...

That's why I pictured them as ugly little monsters grabbing ammonia molecules out of the water that's passing by... water moves by too slow and they finish their molecule and are waiting for another... if the molecules rush by too quickly they are still chewing one while several more slide right past them... But I wonder if there is a flow rate at which the little bacteria monsters cannot catch the ammonia molecules at all?


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

Toby_H said:


> The way bacteria works really clicked for me when I started viewing it just like millions of little animals...
> 
> Some "eat" ammonia and "poop" nitrite...
> 
> ...


That is awesome! :thumb: 
I really like the analogy Toby.
The flow rate thing is really getting under my skin and I want to check into it.
Hopefully someone here can help us out with it.

But even that is not the only variable.
How does one ensure the flow rate is consistent to any and all parts of the tank?
How do we confirm/test for it?


----------



## bntbrl (Apr 23, 2009)

If a mechanical restriction, ie. filter pad or scrubber pads catch and hold the waste for the bacteria to eat this should no real difference in it floating around somewhere getting eaten then does it? Does the filter material, floass, sponge or whatever provice a greater area fo rbacteria to colonize? If thats the case then a surface like a cars radiator would provide decent filtration provioded that water could move through it somehwat freely. If that material gets clogged though it produces less surface area fo rless bacteria to attach.


----------



## Rick_Lindsey (Aug 26, 2002)

I'd think it's pretty clear that the flow rate is NOT consistent to all parts of the tank, as most people have "dead spots", and even those that don't will have eddies etc. somewhere in their tank.

Most canister filters have a much slower flow rate as compared to their "gallon rating" than even the same company's HOB style filter, but much more media. I think the "10x" rate rule-of-thumb was originally for HOB style filters on overstocked mbuna tanks, and has become the holy number of filtration through urban legend and general internetism.

Going back to the bacteria-monsters in our filters (or perhaps not in our filters)... if I were a bacteria monster I'd set up shop where-ever food would come to me most consistently (think low/medium flow canister filter). Given that bacteria-monsters aren't sentient (I hope), a better model might be that bacteria where there is a steady source of nutrients will grow/reproduce faster than bacteria where there is not a steady source of nutrients, and they may out-compete bacteria-monsters elsewhere in the tank if they get first-shot at the food supply.

No scientific evidence, but anecdotally, moving a filter from one tank to another, along with the fish from the same tank should avoid a cycle. Clearly not all the bacteria moved with the filter, but if this anecdote has more than a tiny grain of truth then clearly a sufficient amount moved to replicate quickly to the required level to deal with all the waste the fishies were producing (also note that there may be detritus etc. decomposing in the tank that didn't come with the fishies, so the overall bioload and therefor the required number of bacteria-monsters may have decreased).

If one started such a tank with fresh water/substrate/decor, and just moved fishies and filters, at time zero there is clearly no significant bacteria-monster infestation in the tank proper. There will be spots in the tank though where food is more abundant (i.e. wherever detritus accumulates and decays), so any randomly passing bacteria-monster might accidently latch on, and proceed to be fruitful and multiply.

Given the success of UGFs for decades, there is clearly nothing "magic" about this or that latest greatest bio filter media... plain old gravel worked for generations, and it still works today. Going back to anecdotal evidence though, would UGF's have even developed and become ubiquitous if there wasn't some advantage to a UGF over just a bubbling treasure-chest decoration?

Just a few morsels from the cess-pool of my brain .

Carry on, gentlemen!

-Rick (the armchair aquarist)


----------



## Rick_Lindsey (Aug 26, 2002)

bntbrl said:


> If thats the case then a surface like a cars radiator would provide decent filtration provioded that water could move through it somehwat freely. If that material gets clogged though it produces less surface area fo rless bacteria to attach.


Bioballs look remarkably like a radiator, and they seem to be the wet/dry media of choice. Of course, there are other media for submerged purposes that have *much* higher surface area, but I believe part of the idea behind the bioball is that they promote even flow (and perhaps tend to shed gunk? not sure about that though).

-Rick (the armchair aquarist)


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

With gravel serving as such a great "bio-bed" I am now wondering how much flow really matters if at all.
How much flow really gets into the gravel bed itself?
I would guess not much except for some flow skimming the surface of the substrate.
Most of the waste becomes trapped further down into the gravel and doesn't just sit on the top portion of the gravel.

Now I am not saying it is anaerobic or oxygen depleted environment but it is not an oxygen rich environment?
Or is it?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Rick, your input is always appreciatedâ€¦

On the point of cycling a fish tank with a mature filterâ€¦

While I have personally put an old filter from a mature tank on a brand new tank with all brand new stuff to â€œinstantly cycle itâ€


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

Jumping in late, but just thought I'd offer some thoughts of my own, just from my experience.

Biomedia, whatever it's form, does have some benefit even if it's not absolutely needed. Biomedia provides for surface area that never gets disturbed unlike tank surfaces, rocks, etc. Theoretically, you could do without it, but then you'd have to be careful not to get too aggressive with cleaning the various surfaces of the tank. Reef tanks have gone the way of completely removing biomedia and relying on surface areas, but they also typically employ protein skimmers and have a light fish load. More surface area than you need provides for a buffer against the unexpected, so I wouldn't consider it unecessary in that regard.

You can see the chemical forumlas here for the nitrogen cycle conversions.

IME nitrification occurs just fine within a wide range of flow rates, but temp and pH can have an effect on the nitrogen cycle. A low temp and/or pH can inhibit it. Nitrogen cycle

Surfaces covered in mulm or other organics harbor heterotrophic bacteria, but not nitrifiers. They are two different types of bacteria. The heterotrophic break down the organics into ammonia which then 'feeds' the nitrifiers. Clogged media will inhibit flow and the ability of oxygenated water to reach the nitrifiers populating the surfaces of the media. The best description that I've ever read of where nitrifying bacteria can be found was in 'Ecology of the planted aquarium' by Diana Walstad. They live in a very thin, hard layer on surfaces with other microorganisms. If they did set up on the surface of organic matter, then their home base would soon be destroyed by the heterotrophic. I doubt many nitrifiers are found on the surface of organic matter. Everything I've read indicates they are found on stable surface areas that are supplied with oxygenated water.

From some testing that I've done recently, the bacteria don't 'starve off' as quickly as feared. I've been testing a bare tank that I cycled to 1ppm. Held off adding ammonia for 7 days at one point. Added ammonia again, and it was 0 after 24 hours. The bacteria was still there and still able to handle the load put upon it even after not being 'fed' for a week. I'm going to contiue testing to see where the break point is. It just takes time.

This link also sheds some more light on the nitrogen cycle, oxygen demands, etc.



> I have read many times that fish actually dispel ammonia in their breathing processâ€¦ I must confess, I have never tested water for ammonia after receiving a fish in the mailâ€¦ I would be very interested to hear results from someone who hasâ€¦


Very true and well documented which is why I always add a drop or two of Ammolock when I ship fish. I had a chance to test this once when a box of fish was returned to me. Ammonia in the bag was 2-3ppm, but 'free' ammonia was near 0. The ammolock had worked, fish were fine. How much of this ammonia was from respiration is hard to say. Here's one source that claims 75% is from fish respiration.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Tim thanks for contributing J

Itâ€™s good to have reliable information about where the nitrifying bacteria actually live. Considering they will not form on the surface of waste changes a few things from our previous conversationâ€¦

Adding this to the detail that (approx) 75% of the ammonia produced by a fish comes from the fish itself directly into the waterâ€¦ it is changed even moreâ€¦

Iâ€™m also very eager to hear the results of your â€˜starving bacteriaâ€™ experiment. We so often hear questions of how long bacteria will last, and thus far I have only heard (and admit tingly supplied) speculative answers. It will be very good to have facts as opposed to theories.



prov356 said:


> Biomedia, whatever it's form, does have some benefit even if it's not absolutely needed. Biomedia provides for surface area that never gets disturbed unlike tank surfaces, rocks, etc. Theoretically, you could do without it, but then you'd have to be careful not to get too aggressive with cleaning the various surfaces of the tank. Reef tanks have gone the way of completely removing biomedia and relying on surface areas, but they also typically employ protein skimmers and have a light fish load. More surface area than you need provides for a buffer against the unexpected, so I wouldn't consider it unnecessary in that regard.


I must admit though, my personal experience conflicts with this paragraph. I have a heavily stocked 125 gal aquarium that has 2x AC110 w/ sponges only & 2x Magnum HOTs with micron cartridges w/ blue sock only (no bio media). I pull the sponges and heavily rinse them under chlorinated water every week or two. I swap out the micron cartridges and soak them in bleach/water every other month or so. I do regular water changes (20~60% weekly, size depends on thoroughness of cleaning substrate).

The tank does have extensive dÃ©cor (driftwood & rock) and I havenâ€™t pulled any dÃ©cor out and scrubbed it in many months, but I donâ€™t think doing so is common. This tank hasnâ€™t ever showed ammonia nor nitrite readings and has been filtered/maintained/stocked this way for quite some time (tankâ€™s been mature for many years).

This tank, and many similarly kept set ups, are the reasons why I am so thoroughly convinced that a typical tank will have ample surfaces to accommodate bacteria and bio media that supplies additional surface area is not at all needed.


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> bio media that supplies additional surface area is not at all needed.


Not at all needed in any tank ever?  Are you really ready to say that?

And, I don't disagree with you at all. Actually, I tend to agree that it's not needed as much as believed, but question whether or not it should still be used.



> Biomedia, whatever it's form, does have some benefit *even if it's not absolutely needed*...More surface area than you need provides for a buffer against the unexpected, so I wouldn't consider it unnecessary in that regard.


But, one of the tests that I've been wanting to do is to set up something with nothing more than air stones to circulate water. Cycle the tank, add fish, and see what happens. I'm theorizing like you that it'll do fine. Doesn't mean I wouldn't use biomedia in the future. Regardless of the outcome, my personal cost/benefit anaylsis tells me to use it.

Here's a really good article in the forum library called Life buffer theory. The idea is to go beyond what is absolutely needed to provide a 'buffer'. I'd already been subscribing to this practice when one day I saw it put into words. So even though we can agree that biomedia may not be absolutely needed, is that really 'best practice'? Is there a benefit other than initial cost to justify doing away with it?

I did some testing of rinsing media in tap water as you know from another thread and had good results like you have. But, that was in established tanks with fish. In the tank that I cycled with ammonia that I mentioned previously, I did not have such good results. Problem is, I also did a 100% water change on that same tank, so not sure what disrupted the bacteria, the filter cleaning or the 100% water change(dechlorinated, same temp, etc). It took three days after that for 1ppm of ammonia to be converted. So, I've got more testing to do. I'm going to try again, first the water change one day, then the sponge filter cleaning to see if one or the other triggers the disruption.

I also believe that the new bacteria from a newly cycled tank (fishless) are more fragile than what colonizes down the road. Could this be because they haven't yet fully established that thin hard biofilm that they live in? Possibly. Not sure we'll ever know, but it would be good to know exactly where the line is. For my own purposes I want to feel confident about what I can do in either a new tank or well established one.

Good thread again, by the way. :thumb:


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

prov356 said:


> > bio media that supplies additional surface area is not at all needed.
> 
> 
> Not at all needed in any tank ever?  Are you really ready to say that?


Nope, Iâ€™m not ready to say that  Rarely is it safe to speak in such absolutesâ€¦

But as a general statement in â€˜typicalâ€™ situations, Iâ€™m comfortable saying suchâ€¦

I havenâ€™t put it to the test, but I agree â€˜it seemsâ€™ like a newly cycled tank may be considerably more fragile in regards to bio filtrationâ€¦ I look forward to hearing the results of your 10 gal air stone test and have a slightly different â€œtestâ€


----------



## noddy (Nov 20, 2006)

At the risk of sounding dumb, I had a 120g. with a eheim 2217 on it, the water tested high for nitrates. I added another 2217 and the tank no longer tests high for nitrates. I am quite sure that the extra 2217 is doing something. Maybe if I would have made the tank twice as large (providing twice as much surface area) I wouldn't have needed to add another filter.


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> I feel that setting up a canister filter â€œfor bio onlyâ€


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

prov356 said:


> None really do bio only. There needs to be a prefilter either internal or external. What config would you recommend that would be a better use of a cannister and why?
> 
> I recommend a cannister stuffed with bio and fitted with a prefilter on the intake. I recommend this config to keep organics out of the cannister, not because the extra biomedia is needed. Maybe that's where the misunderstanding lies.


I completely agree that a filter will not be set up â€œfor bio onlyâ€


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> I feel the average person learning via reading this site (outside of this thread) will be mislead in this regard on the topic of the usage of bio mediaâ€¦


There is a lot of misunderstanding. I've stressed overall system when looking at filtration. There's nothing magical going on in a plug-in device that's not going on all over the system. When someone asks "should I add a filter", I think they're looking at it the wrong way. They should start by asking themselves what water quality problem are they trying to solve? In other words, how do I reduce ammonia, make the water more clear, reduce nitrates, etc. And I have seen posts where biofiltratio is over-emphasized and overdone, you're right. And it is common to believe that adding a plug in device will improve water quality. Maybe yes, maybe no. Lots of misunderstandings about filtration and ways to achieve it.



> I think that this misunderstanding was born from people believing the exaggerations presented by the manufacturers of bio mediaâ€¦


They don't help do they? :lol: I'm just not ready to go to the other extreme and say just drop a couple of powerheads into a tank and you're good to go. Not yet. I'm not sold yet. I've got to prove this one out for myself. If I had any nerve, I'd remove the biomedia from the wet/dry of my established 180, but no way I've got that kind of nerve. That'd be a great test though, wouldn't it? There's a pretty heavy bioload, lots of rock, lots of surface area, and lots of circulation. Should be all I need right? Would you do it?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

prov356 said:


> If I had any nerve, I'd remove the biomedia from the wet/dry of my established 180, but no way I've got that kind of nerve. That'd be a great test though, wouldn't it? There's a pretty heavy bioload, lots of rock, lots of surface area, and lots of circulation. Should be all I need right? Would you do it?


Nope...

In my first post I excluded wet/dry filters from "Bio Media" as they are a bit different. Surface area simply submerged in tank water is different from bacteria forming in a Wet/Dry filter as it has access to far more oxygen.

Therefore it is quite possible in your 180 gal w/ a Wet/Dry, that you have a significant quantity of bacteria growing in the Wet/Dry thus meaning there is less (but definitely some) growing elsewhere in the system. So removing the Wet/Dry all together at once may be removing a larger % of the bacteria than would be healthy.

I believe that there is bacteria throughout your mature 180 gal... and in a relatively short time (a week or so) the bacteria in the tank will multiple to a level to handle the bio load... but you will have a "mini cycle" due to the sudden loss of bacteria in the Wet/Dry...

Or so I believeâ€¦


----------



## planenut007 (Mar 21, 2009)

There is more info in this one thread than in most $30-$50 books you pick up.
Somtimes I wonder if it is the fish OR the water chemistry that is so interesting about this hobby, or " illness" as it may well be.
I got the 30gal set up with old seasoned filter and some gravel with a few rocks, in a few days I'll add some fish and test the theory of the filterless tank, only power heads for water movement.


----------



## Rick_Lindsey (Aug 26, 2002)

It's funny, even though this topic has been casting doubt on the usefulness of most "bio" filters, it has reinforced my desire to do sump-style filttration with a wet/dry trickle filter (though truth be told, i wouldn't be averse to doing sump with filter socks and submerged media either).

Most of us massively overfilter our cichlid tanks, but i think as a whole we might be better served by filtering strategically rather than just throwing as much filtration as possible at the tank.

The big advantage of the sump style filtration in my mind isnt' the massive bio-filtration capacity of a wet/dry trickle filter, but rather the fact that much of the gunk gets tossed into one place (the prefilter pad on top of your tower), and that place is easy to access, and the prefilter media is very cheap to replace (I'm planning to use walmart quilt batting), so you can afford to easily toss the soiled prefilter pad frequently, removing detritus from the system before it has a chance to decompose and enter the nitrogen cycle.

-Rick (the armchair aquarist, who used to want cannister filters, but is changing his thinking)


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

I feel the same way Rick, it has reinforced how important proper setup of a filter is, at least for me it has.
Part of the reason I don't like cansiters is that they claim to be an automatic biological heaven of sorts but often they are not setup or maintained properly.
The user can't just assume I will use such and such media as bio and the other as mechanical in however manner and call it a day.
It really needs an approach that will maximize efficiency.


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

Agreed, it's all in the approach. Cannisters as biofilters work great, they really do when set up properly. What's the alternative? Powerheads? I don't want powerheads in my tank, and they're not exactly cheap either. Or set up a cannister as a mechanical filter and just resolve to open it and clean it more often? No thanks. HOB's? Nope, I don't run them and don't want them for various reasons.

Just because we can unplug the cannister and add powerheads instead doesn't mean we should or would want to. There are some interesting ideas in this thread, but not sure there's practical application. Should I have set up my wet/dry without biomedia because I can? No. And I could have if the ideas here prove out to be true. So why spend the money on the bioballs? Buffer theory, that's why. Buffer theory holds true for cannisters as biofilters too. Should I set up a filterless tank because I can? Again, for me the answer is no, and the reason again is the buffer theory.

Even though you can remove a filter and the bacteria elsewhere will pick up the slack, doesn't make it best practice. I see it as simply stripping down to as little as possible just for the sake of doing so. Just to say we can. I know, there's the costs. But low end cannisters aren't expensive, and are more versatile than powerheads. Again, interesting ideas here, but there needs to be some benefit to not running cannisters as biofilters, not just no apparent detriment to not doing so. I go back to the reef tank example. They removed the biomedia to control nitrates. If we move to this model in the freshwater world, and it is shown to be of some benefit like controlling nitrates, then I'd be more inclined to adopt it.


----------



## KaiserSousay (Nov 2, 2008)

Interesting thread. :thumb: 
But that, no more than that. 
As with most all intellectual gymnastics, it is good to stretch the mind, but in the end, it all amounts to a mental workout. 
Even if some concrete evidence was presented, showing the effectiveness of a media less bio tank, I would be reluctant to chuck my system without a few years of proven success by many users, with many tank configurations. 
But I am pretty timid when adopting something new.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Just as a reminderâ€¦ no where in this thread have I suggested to anyone to remove their bio mediaâ€¦ and the one time directly asked if I would (in Timâ€™s 180 gal w/ wet/dry) I clearly said I would notâ€¦

The reason I entertained this conversation was to help hobbyists (myself included) to better understand what is needed and how to better achieve what is neededâ€¦

I complimented the article explaining the benefits of the â€œBuffer Theoryâ€


----------



## KaiserSousay (Nov 2, 2008)

> Kaiser... no one suggested you throw out anything... only sharing experiences, knowledge and understandings to help you make better decisions


 :thumb: 
Like I said, interesting thread..You and Tim always provide useful information. 
As for my decision making process, well...process would be too kind a description. :lol:


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> What would you consider â€œset up properlyâ€


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

I am surprised and I have to admit somewhat shockedâ€¦

It seems we have begun to verify that one of the fundamental approaches to filtration is absolutely unnecessaryâ€¦ and itâ€™s being written off as intellectual gymnasticsâ€¦

I donâ€™t think everyone should revamp their filtration based on what has been discussed in this threadâ€¦ but I do think many of us should revamp our thinkingâ€¦


----------



## KevinZ (Sep 20, 2007)

When I do a fishless cycle, I consider the tank ready when I can add 5 ppm ammonia to the tank, and then in 12 hours I can measure 0 ammonia and 0 nitrites. I do this, of course, because that is what is suggested in most fishless cycling intructions on the internet. (This may be overkill for what the fish actually need, but that would be a whole other topic.)

I think an interesting experiment would be to take a completely bare tank (thus providing the lowest amount of surface area possible), add a small amount of current with an airstone (again, lower than most tanks will see), add ammonia, and see if it ever gets to the "5 ppm to 0 ppm in 12 hours" level.

If it does, that would convince me that my extra bio filtration is largely unnecessary.


----------



## smellsfishy1 (May 29, 2008)

I agree Toby, when I jumped in this thread I actually came into it with the intention of looking at my filtering approach introspectively.
I knew I wasn't going to change how I do things because I know it works for me.
What I wanted to do was share my ideas and get some new ones to expand on my understanding.

I am not really sure why some have stated that they will not change how they choose to filter their tanks.
That really wasn't the intention of the thread, at least from my perspective.
In retrospect I think we should have posted a disclaimer in the beginning. :thumb:


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> It seems we have begun to verify that one of the fundamental approaches to filtration is absolutely unnecessaryâ€¦


I don't think we've begun to do that at all. We've make the point that filters can be removed from an established tank (or not added in the first place, at least in some cases) because nitrifying bacteria populate other areas of the system, but that's not news, and that doesn't make those filters absolutely unecessary, and doesn't even make it a good idea IMO. I've already stated why, so won't repeat. I feel like I'm beating a really dead horse now, so I"ll be done.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Over three pages of people sharing often conflicting ideas/experiences and we are all still friendsâ€¦ I think we are doing great lolâ€¦

Having a Buffer Factor is a great ideaâ€¦ but if the system naturally has many times more â€œsurface areaâ€


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

> but if the system naturally has many times more â€œsurface areaâ€


----------

