Contact time and flow are relatively the same as far as an established bio filter is concerned. While a higher flow won't have the same time to filter waste, it gets more passes to do it, so it all kinda weighs out.
What's the big difference? Energy=$
Cost to run. If you have riverine species or an overstocked system(mbuna for example) flow is probably important, but in most setups chasing a higher flow just adds heat to the water and cost to run.
Not much of a net gain really. All the filters in the world will not reduce NO3 any faster..... Water changes and or plants are for that.
Ok gang,
For fun, I cut the flow in half on my bio filter pumps. I will test the tank daily. I have a stout bio load on this tank of about 50 (no clue how many) african cichlids that are well fed.
There is still very even flow across the drip pans of my 2 Pro-Clear premier 300s.
Another bonus from slowing the flow down on these, is the added contact time on my Aqua uv 57 watt sterilizer
The mechanical filter (Hayward Starclear cf500) is still running flat out around 4000 gph.
Well I'm not talking about ridiculous flow rates or speed of bio-wheels but in most cases, similar amounts of ammonia will be taken out, according to marineland themselves. They put a packet of the study I stated in the box I bought the filter in. So how am I wrong?
Well I'm not talking about ridiculous flow rates or speed of bio-wheels but in most cases, similar amounts of ammonia will be taken out, according to marineland themselves. They put a packet of the study I stated in the box I bought the filter in. So how am I wrong?