Let's Talk Poop

[A201]

I admire the creativity & engineering of the noted filtration systems. They make my filtration look prehistoric & comical. I also envy the dedication directed toward optimal fishkeeping.
My filtration is simply modified Marineland Emperor 400's, stuffed with sponges, ceramics & activated charcoal. No pre-filters.
I squeeze out the sponges once or twice a month coupled with a 30% -50% weekly WC. The nitrates have always been <20.
Of course I'm only dealing with 120 gal. & 65 gal. tanks.
I really don't notice any substanial crud build up inside the tank, although I'm certain plenty exists unseen in the gravel substrate. There is always a thin layer of gunk inside the filter boxes.
IMO, the bio gunk that exists in the aquarium environment is just fuel for benificial bacteria to feast on. Not really detrimental unless allowed to build up to excess.
In times gone by I was one that meticulously cleaned the filters on a weekly basis & deep vacuumed the substrate, going for a more sterile, sanitary environment.
Over the years I struck a happy medium, lessening the frequency & intensity of filter cleaning and found that less can actually be more. I believe a dirty filter is a healthy filter, with in reason.

 

[Something Fishy Here]

I am enjoying this thread as I've only been keeping fish about 18 years, so basically a novice here. I run an fx as well and do weekly 60 to 70% water changes. Minimal plants but there's a couple. Recently added a uv unit and a wave maker. I service the fx every 4 to 6 months and only break out the test kit about once a month. Iwhen i test it's right before water changes, and nitrate is between 10 and 20. And i test twice back to back to reduce the possibility of human error. This has been working for me and seems to be working for my fish, though i know some members would be gasping at the lack of maintenance performed.

 

[duanes]

I'm a little anal about poop (and detritus), and because I use heavily planted sumps, think of it as simply plant food.
And to me poop, is not the main culprit, but what that poop becomes chemically when sequestered in filters.
For me, most of it ends up in the sump/refugium, where shrimp and snails break it down further, and the plants eat the remaining chemical byproducts of that and bacterial breakdown.
The only way we as aquarists can determine how effective our systems are, is regular testing, and the only comprehensive test we have available is nitrate, and it is not the end all, it is an indicator of other chemical species in the tanks soup.

To me, any nitrate level above 5 ppm, is too high, and require a water change.
Exposure to Nitrate Increases Susceptibility to Hypoxia in ...The University of Chicago Press: Journalshttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu › doi
And where I collect my cichlids, I have yet to find a natural water source where they are, with any detectable nitrate.

To me, we aquarists have been bamboozled for decades, into believing aquaculture test research aimed at what it takes to allow fish farmers to bring fish fillets to the shelf at low cost, instead of looking at the real world from our view point.

 

[jjohnwm]

I agree 100% with Esox's comments above. Hiding fish waste inside a filter, where it goes unseen and forgotten but still adds to the nitrate build-up in the water, is not necessarily the kiss of death, as long as water changes are frequent enough and massive enough to remove those resulting nitrates. But...using a filter that allows frequent cleaning, and actually doing that cleaning, removes a large percentage of waste from the tank before it has a chance to break down in the first place. There is literally no downside to this practice. This is why I think sumps are unequalled in their efficiency as aquarium filters...and also why I detest canisters. Planted sumps like those used by duanes are certainly superior, but they depend upon the massive plant growth to eat up the nitrates and other end-products; I want to remove as much as possible of the original "poop" before it has a chance to become nitrate.

My DIY filters are all set-up essentially like Esox shows in his pics. They all incorporate an easily accessible pre-filter layer which I clean multiple times weekly, oftentimes daily. And thanks to that cleaning, the remaining media in the filter remains untouched and clean for extended periods. I don't use floss usually, I prefer to cut a pad of 2-inch Poret foam that can be removed, squeezed/rinsed, and then replaced. Ideally, I will have a couple of identical pads, just rotate out the dirty one and drop in a clean replacment. I'm currently working on installing a laundry-tub/sink in my basement fish room, which will make the cleaning fast and easy. But, during warm weather, I prefer to take the dirty pad(s) outside and just high-pressure hose them till clean.

I still use Poret foam for Matten-type filters in some tanks, but even in those I like to vacuum the front face of the foam as often as possible to remove waste before my bacteria get their grubby hands on it. I am a bit amazed at the number of times I read on MFK about people being frightened of large water changes or mechanical medium cleaning because they are terrified they will destroy their beneficial bacteria; this displays a sad misunderstanding of how and where the bacteria live and do their job. I do near-100% water changes as often as possible and don't ever crash a tank, because the bacteria don't live in the water column; and I swap out the first layer of mechanical medium, i.e. the pre-filter, as close to daily as possible without a care because the biomedia in the filter...which I virtually never touch...is where the bulk of the good guys live.

I will honestly admit that this is overkill; when I was still working, my prefilters went untouched for up to three weeks at a time, without any water changes for the same period, because I would be absent from home that long. The tanks would all get a near-100% water change when I got home....and another similar one a week later just before I flew out again. The prefilters would be so clogged by the end of three weeks that there would be several inches of water standing on top of them, creating a "head pressure" that forced the flow through the poret pad. The fish were healthy and colourful, plants grew well, but nitrates could build up to 30ppm before being knocked back down.

It's mostly a matter of personal preference. Why accept a nitrate reading of 10 when you can get 5, simply by maintaining your tanks and filters in a manner which makes you happy? Why leave poop in your tank for bacteria to turn into nitrate...which you then need to remove...when you can easily remove it immediately and bypass the bacteria altogether? Of course, if you have canisters...well, I guess you're pretty much hooped already.

You get to decide what's "good enough" and your fish will let you know how good or bad your decision was.

 

[Trouser Cough]

Of course, if you have canisters...well, I guess you're pretty much hooped already.

I think of this often. I found some fry that I just had to have and at the time had recently given away my spare tank (an old bomber 125g) to a friend that had been learning about fish and aquarium systems. I converted my sump to a grow out, installed a ton of mechanical and re-reminded myself several times about why I like sumps so much. A big sump on a big tank though... it's a project that's easy to put off for a bit.

I need to go back.

I wonder if there might be something about modern tank biochemistry that isn't likely to show up in a test tube. Might there be some other aspect to lived in water that fish are at least moderately sensitive to that we don't test for? For lack of a better way to form the question... might we be promoting the biological breakdown of the turd but leaving the residual stink (or similar) in the tank that we don't notice but fish do? It seems to me almost too simplistic that the key might be monitoring NO3 and WC's but I can't know what I don't know. Thoughts?

 

[esoxlucius]

I wonder if there might be something about modern tank biochemistry that isn't likely to show up in a test tube. Might there be some other aspect to lived in water that fish are at least moderately sensitive to that we don't test for? For lack of a better way to form the question... might we be promoting the biological breakdown of the turd but leaving the residual stink (or similar) in the tank that we don't notice but fish do? It seems to me almost too simplistic that the key might be monitoring NO3 and WC's but I can't know what I don't know. Thoughts?

Pretty much all hobbyists use nitrate as the pre cursor to water changes. It's easily measured whereas the "other" stuff isn't, so it's a good way to tell when your system is getting a bit manky. You do your water change and then, when your nitrate rises to the cut off point of what's acceptable to you, you do another water change, and so it goes on, that's how it works.

But you're right, nitrate isn't the only thing building up. Other trace elements will also slowly be building up, and some other trace elements will also be decreasing. Water changes dilute the bad stuff, and at the same time replenish some of the good stuff. Water is made up of several trace elements and they're all utilised by the inhabitants of our tanks, both fish and plants. So the balance is forever changing.

What all these trace chemicals are, and how bad or good they are for our fish/plants is probably a topic better addressed by a marine biologist!

Some hobbyists also use TDS meters to determine when it's water change time. There is definitely a correlation between the build up of nitrate etc etc and your TDS reading (total dissolved solids).

 

[jjohnwm]

I wonder if there might be something about modern tank biochemistry that isn't likely to show up in a test tube. Might there be some other aspect to lived in water that fish are at least moderately sensitive to that we don't test for? For lack of a better way to form the question... might we be promoting the biological breakdown of the turd but leaving the residual stink (or similar) in the tank that we don't notice but fish do? It seems to me almost too simplistic that the key might be monitoring NO3 and WC's but I can't know what I don't know.

I think this is a given, no question about it. We test for nitrates (and nitrites, and ammonia) because we can do it easily and cheaply, and because that's become the accepted practice in the hobby. The ammonia and nitrite levels tell us if our tanks are "cycled", and the nitrate levels are a good indicator of how much crap has accumulated in our tanks, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest, as many do, that this is comprehensive. We had a thread once upon a time where the aquarist felt that testing the TDS level of his water would tell him the nitrate level, apparently thinking that everything a fish excretes becomes nitrate. I've also had people aggressively demanding that I tell them exactly what else the fish are producing, when I suggested that nitrates weren't the be-all and end-all of water quality.

As you say, how can a layman possibly know that? Why do various dog turds I pick up off the lawn have varying textures and aromas? Why does cutting the cheese on a warm summer day never smell quite the same twice in a row? The recipes must be changing! But I don't need to know every last detail of what is in the turd; it's enough to pick it up off the lawn and dispose of it. The fart doesn't require chemical analysis; opening a window and airing it out does the job regardless of what's in the mixture.

It's the same with fish. I am confident that the things they are constantly excreting into the water, from both ends, consist of a cornucopia of complex organic substances...but I don't care, because between removing the solids as much as possible, and changing the water to remove/dilute the dissolved goodies...it doesn't matter what's in the mix. All that matters is getting it out of the tank.

Edited to add: For crying out loud, Esox...what the hell? I peck out what I consider a well-reasoned and lucid synopsis of my feelings on the topic...and hit Send...only to find that mere seconds earlier you have already stated pretty much the same goldang thing and posted it right in front of me...making me look like one of those godforsaken bots we all hate so much!

Now cut that out!

 

[esoxlucius]

Yeah, we both must have hit the send button at the same time, lol. But I was just that bit quicker, so, for a change, you look the arse, and I come out smelling of roses, lol.

And of course you could also add that great minds think alike! Lol.

 

[jjohnwm]

Going a step further...I wonder if we are actually being counterproductive by testing for nitrate?

You set up a nice planted tank, with lots of vegetation but limited animal stocking...you feed sparingly, and you keep a critical eye on your nitrates. Let's say they don't increase, thanks to all that greenery, so you decide to sit back and relax on the water changes. But...although the plants may indeed be eating up the nitrates...there might be, in fact there certainly are, all kinds of other mysterious chemicals and compounds in there that are just building and building and building...

So nitrate testing has given us a false sense of security regarding the quality of the water, which is in fact a disgusting soup of bad stuff, but contains a low enough level of that one thing we are testing that we forget all about the other stuff...and the fish suffer for it. Does this sound feasible?

 

[esoxlucius]

Does this sound feasible?

Absolutely. That little hex tank I have, with all it's algae and stuff going on hasn't seen nitrate since I started it up in April!

All I was doing for the first few weeks was topping up the water level to compensate for evaporation.

But I soon realised that the water wasn't evaporating fast enough for me to add the amount of clean water that I thought was necessary to keep the "nasties" in check.

So now, even though I never see nitrate, I do a weekly water change, just to be sure that other stuff isn't going to cause issues.