maybe some of my typing took the wrong tone, I wasn't talking down to you, or ignoring any of the points you're bringing up.
Amount of Bio-Media
- Thread starter Whynot91
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I will clear this up for you. You are both wrong. The reason a wet/dry is better has nothing to do with flow rate. It involves the available oxygen. Wet/dry filters have air all around the wet media because it is not submerged, that is why it is called a wet/dry. A canister is sealed and the BB only has the dissolved oxygen in the water available to it because it is submerged.
Flow only becomes relevant when a bio-media is receiving enough oxygen to break down more waist but the flow is limiting the available waist it comes in contact with. No matter how much or how little flow goes through a bio filter ALL waist is not broke down in one pass. If you were able to show the efficiency of any given filter on a graph with constant oxygen and increasing flow the graph line would rise and level off and even if you continue to increase flow it would not break down more waist. So more flow would only waist energy. Were as if your bio media does not have enough water flow, you will not be using it's full potential. There is a sweet spot with flow and available oxygen.
That is why a wet/dry can be better than a canister, because of available oxygen. If you have the same amount of bio media in a canister and in a wet/dry with the same flow rate, the wet/dry will out perform the canister. Simple chemistry, the oxygen becomes the limiting factor and the wet/dry has more so will have more chemical reaction.
Flow only becomes relevant when a bio-media is receiving enough oxygen to break down more waist but the flow is limiting the available waist it comes in contact with. No matter how much or how little flow goes through a bio filter ALL waist is not broke down in one pass. If you were able to show the efficiency of any given filter on a graph with constant oxygen and increasing flow the graph line would rise and level off and even if you continue to increase flow it would not break down more waist. So more flow would only waist energy. Were as if your bio media does not have enough water flow, you will not be using it's full potential. There is a sweet spot with flow and available oxygen.
That is why a wet/dry can be better than a canister, because of available oxygen. If you have the same amount of bio media in a canister and in a wet/dry with the same flow rate, the wet/dry will out perform the canister. Simple chemistry, the oxygen becomes the limiting factor and the wet/dry has more so will have more chemical reaction.
shellies215;5160136; said:maybe some of my typing took the wrong tone, I wasn't talking down to you, or ignoring any of the points you're bringing up.
Like I said I'm sorry.
I might not have been clear on what I was asking. I was saying I know a wet/dry is more efficient processing ammonia and nitrites. I was just saying that I thought that if you were using an fx5 or fx5s and they were taking care of all the ammonia and nitrites in the aquarium that you could argue the need for why a wet/dry would be better. To a point at least. I know if it was a 2000 gallon aquarium a wet/dry would make more sense than 8 fx5s. I guess they do make bigger canisters for that kind of set up though. I guess generally speaking though it comes down to power consumption, noise, ease of use, and personal preference.
earthstudent;5160148; said:I will clear this up for you. You are both wrong. The reason a wet/dry is better has nothing to do with flow rate. It involves the available oxygen. Wet/dry filters have air all around the wet media because it is not submerged, that is why it is called a wet/dry. A canister is sealed and the BB only has the dissolved oxygen in the water available to it because it is submerged.
Flow only becomes relevant when a bio-media is receiving enough oxygen to break down more waist but the flow is limiting the available waist it comes in contact with. No matter how much or how little flow goes through a bio filter ALL waist is not broke down in one pass. If you were able to show the efficiency of any given filter on a graph with constant oxygen and increasing flow the graph line would rise and level off and even if you continue to increase flow it would not break down more waist. So more flow would only waist energy. Were as if your bio media does not have enough water flow, you will not be using it's full potential. There is a sweet spot with flow and available oxygen.
That is why a wet/dry can be better than a canister, because of available oxygen. If you have the same amount of bio media in a canister and in a wet/dry with the same flow rate, the wet/dry will out perform the canister. Simple chemistry, the oxygen becomes the limiting factor and the wet/dry has more so will have more chemical reaction.
Now thats what im looking for in a thread.
Well explained info Thanks
A few thoughts on what has been presented.
Test your water, for sure.
Certainly for the first year the tank is up.
If your tank has been cycled and stabilized, I wouldn`t bother with nitrite testing. An occasional ammonia test, just to be sure everything is OK isn`t a bad idea.
In truth, I haven`t tested over once a month for an awful long time.
On a fully cycled tank you reach a point where your test results never seem to vary and you just settle into the “rhythms” of WC and filter maintenance, unless you make some major changes.
Even with some pretty radical change to the tank, if it has matured, run successfully for a year +, there are very small changes to the water chemistry that get sorted out quickly.
I have never seen any science based information that backs up the “efficiency” of a wet/dry over any other system`s oxygen content.
Would seem the wet/dry should have more oxygen available, but what about the oxygen present in your water?
Your fish need the 02 just like the bacteria, right?
With a well oxygenated tank I really don`t see the wet/dry having any “edge” over any other type system other than a sense, that it should.
Same for the flow theory.
Common sense would seem to point to the lower flow being more efficient, just like the wet/dry/oxygen.
I question that as well.
Available food passing slowly by a feeding organism or going by at a much higher rate of speed, still gets eaten.
Bio media amounts and what is enough.
Got ammonia?
If not, you have enough.
Keeping in mind, just because the media has “BIO” associated with it dosen`t mean that is where “All” your bacteria choose to set up house.
There are probably a large number of tanks that have very little bacterial colonies in the media, for one reason or another.
If the food is easier to get while attached to a piece of tank décor, that`s where the colony will be, no matter how much media you have set aside for it.
Sorry for the ramble..too much coffee for me.
Test your water, for sure.
Certainly for the first year the tank is up.
If your tank has been cycled and stabilized, I wouldn`t bother with nitrite testing. An occasional ammonia test, just to be sure everything is OK isn`t a bad idea.
In truth, I haven`t tested over once a month for an awful long time.
On a fully cycled tank you reach a point where your test results never seem to vary and you just settle into the “rhythms” of WC and filter maintenance, unless you make some major changes.
Even with some pretty radical change to the tank, if it has matured, run successfully for a year +, there are very small changes to the water chemistry that get sorted out quickly.
I have never seen any science based information that backs up the “efficiency” of a wet/dry over any other system`s oxygen content.
Would seem the wet/dry should have more oxygen available, but what about the oxygen present in your water?
Your fish need the 02 just like the bacteria, right?
With a well oxygenated tank I really don`t see the wet/dry having any “edge” over any other type system other than a sense, that it should.
Same for the flow theory.
Common sense would seem to point to the lower flow being more efficient, just like the wet/dry/oxygen.
I question that as well.
Available food passing slowly by a feeding organism or going by at a much higher rate of speed, still gets eaten.
Bio media amounts and what is enough.
Got ammonia?
If not, you have enough.
Keeping in mind, just because the media has “BIO” associated with it dosen`t mean that is where “All” your bacteria choose to set up house.
There are probably a large number of tanks that have very little bacterial colonies in the media, for one reason or another.
If the food is easier to get while attached to a piece of tank décor, that`s where the colony will be, no matter how much media you have set aside for it.
Sorry for the ramble..too much coffee for me.
I did an experiment with 3 20g tanks awhile back. One with a wet/dry, one had a hang on the back and one with a canister. I was able to use the same media and amount of media in the wet/dry and canister but the hang on back would not fit the same amount of the media so I used the "stock" filters in the hang on back. The tanks all had no substrate and no decorations, just a bare tank. The stock (gold fish) was increased gradually (evenly in all tanks by weight) each week until there was a consistent (4 tests in a row or 2 days) ammonia reading of 1ppm. The fish were feed a specific amount per gram of fish in the given tank. No water changes were done so nitrates were pretty high at the end of the test which took 9 weeks after the fish were introduced to the systems. The tank with the larges stock at the end, obviously had a filter that could handle more bio-load so was deemed the more efficient bio-filter.
Long story short, I found the wet/dry DID out perform the other two.
This test was not a perfect scientific test and if I did it again I would make some changes. BUT I was satisfied enough with the results and the results were significant enough considering the wet/dry tank had about 20% more stock than the other two tanks (which both ended up with similar stock).
I think this is why bio-reactor style filters also seem to be so efficient, because there is allot of air being pumped through the media and the media is constantly being exposed directly to air. Water does hold oxygen but only so much. So to me, either the bacteria can use more oxygen than what is available in the water or for some reason they can not use it as readily.
Long story short, I found the wet/dry DID out perform the other two.
This test was not a perfect scientific test and if I did it again I would make some changes. BUT I was satisfied enough with the results and the results were significant enough considering the wet/dry tank had about 20% more stock than the other two tanks (which both ended up with similar stock).
I think this is why bio-reactor style filters also seem to be so efficient, because there is allot of air being pumped through the media and the media is constantly being exposed directly to air. Water does hold oxygen but only so much. So to me, either the bacteria can use more oxygen than what is available in the water or for some reason they can not use it as readily.
This test was not a perfect scientific test and if I did it again I would make some changes. BUT I was satisfied enough with the results and the results were significant enough considering the wet/dry tank had about 20% more stock than the other two tanks (which both ended up with similar stock).
Thanx for your addition and description of your experience.
Your testing method was a bit less than enough to sway my opinion.
Just curious, what got you interested enough to do what you did?
Thanx for your addition and description of your experience.
Your testing method was a bit less than enough to sway my opinion.
Just curious, what got you interested enough to do what you did?
Hello; A question to test my understanding. Is it correct to think that if one filter plus the other surfaces in a tank carry enough beneficial bacteria (bb) to sufficently handle the waste load of a tank, that additional filters will add only an increase level of mechanical filtration?
skjl47;5164187; said:Hello; A question to test my understanding. Is it correct to think that if one filter plus the other surfaces in a tank carry enough beneficial bacteria (bb) to sufficently handle the waste load of a tank, that additional filters will add only an increase level of mechanical filtration?
That has been my experience.
You can have a boatload of bio specific media, but will only have bacterial quantities large enough to consume the available food.
Same goes for where those colonies set up housekeeping.
Wherever the basic needs are filled the easiest , that is where your bacteria will grow the best.
Adding more media will not increase the size of a bacterial colony beyond the available food.
Like having a quart of drinking water.
Lining up a large number of glasses will not equate to more available water.
Let me be clear, I am not saying dump your bio media.
Certainly not for tanks that are not mature and stable.
During the first year, or so of a tanks life the bacteria are like infants.
Easily upset and require gentle care.
If you make it through the growing/stabilizing period you end up with a strong/healthy colony that can take quite a bit of abuse.
It also has the ability to expand and contract to the tanks load quickly.
With some tanks that could very well be in media set aside for bacterial growth, in others not.
I`m just sharing my experience, not trying to change anyones mind.
It was discussions like this thread that got me thinking, which led to actions that proved out, or disproved what was being discussed.
It`s all good..If you have healthy fish and a tank you have a hard time not watching..
Well, what more can you ask for.
