I just bought a Fluval canister filter for the 55g growout. Previously I was just using undergravel with powerheads. So currently I am using the Fluval 70g capacity canister (which is cool as hell by the way) and undergravel. I guess my question is this: Is this new filter going to cycle and kill my fish? It goes through a sponge first, in the 3 trays ive got a carbon first layer, a carbon / bio second layer, and a bio only 3rd layer. Im hoping since ive also got a well established undergravel system in place that adding this new and much improved canister should only make my water better. But I know bio filters will cycle so im just hoping the established U/G will balance that. Let me know if I am mistaken in my theory and headed towards certain doom for my much loved Cichla!
Opinions on filtration
- Thread starter Venom SS
- Start date
lol i dont know much about undergravel i was always told they were insufficient but i dont know since i never owned one. the only canister filter i own is the fx5 the rest are wet/dry filters which i really love. i personally like we/dry filter because they are easy to clean, sufficient and you can still run media if you want
Ive never had any trouble with undergravel. The trick to it is making sure that you have a thick enough gravel base, good strong powerheads on your uplift tubes, and "seed" the gravel with stress zyme and stress coat. I dosed the water with stress zyme after I got the new canister running to help kick start the bio portion of it. The one I got gets really good reviews. If you ever get a chance to look at a new 05 series Fluval in the LFS crack open the box and check it out. Pretty kick ass design.
As long as your UG has fully cycled your tank you are good to go. Adding another filter just adds more bb and doesn't negate the BB in the UG.
bOOsteN aUdI;2194016; said:
Just looked at the FX-5, yeah thats the space shuttle of canister filters lol. The one I got is the same brand and all, just a much smaller unit. After seeing that one its got me thinking. Should I just use the FX-5 on the 280g rather than going with a big sump? The FX seems like it would be much easier to service and maintain than a big sump with bio balls and all that...and should be plenty of filtration for a 280.
bOOsteN aUdI;2194016; said:
^^ i think wet/dry filters are more sufficient and also they are easier to clean, you can still run media, and hold more surface area for biological bacteria to grow and thrive