Why does everyone overdo the bio?

[MadRussian79]

IMO in this scenario I believe since the canister was running that is where most of the bacteria colonized because of better conditions than in the tank maybe better flow of fresh water and/or larger surface area. So when the canister dies majority of the BB go with it...and whats left in the tank, if any, is overwhelmed and the tank crashes. The BB population would re-grow in the tank/deco with time but usually the water gets so bad so fast that all the fish die first. If you didnt have that canister on the tank...the BB would have been more in the tank and deco.

Ok that's valid. I've never seen anyone maintain a tank with only power heads, saltwater yes. It might be possible but glass is not the best medium for bacterial growth, decorations maybe but I think they would get choked with algae. Now I'm actually curious to try it. Not in my 265 but I might get a 30 with some smaller fish.

 

[nfored]

Seriously people I really think it would help MFK if we could make some type of good rule of thumb, other then when in doubt double up. My example of the 10 gallon tank and the tiger barb is a good example of why that method is flawed. I was very new and knew nothing, I did know to search the form and ask questions, but the informaiton was to scattered and not easy to obtain.

So I had a filter die, as soon as I noticed I pulled the bio out placed it in a tank and pointed the power head at it. I know this is off topic but its a good point to bring up, in the event of a filter lose, that doesn't mean the bb is all dead. As long is it has not been broke for a long time, and the water is not to cold, or starved of O2 the bio media can live for several hours even a day.

This is another area sumps have a win on a canister. If you have the heaters in the sump, and the water level so that the bio is always covered in the event of a failure the BB will live much long. It will go dormant before it dies completely of no food. So if the tank crashes while this filter is dead, you can dump the bio in the tank directly to populate the substrat. Also since a sump is typically uncovered the will be some surface agitation to keep O2 in the water to keep the bio alive

 

[cvermeulen]

There is a case to be made for having seperate "bio media" although as it's been said, particularly if you have a decent amount of substrate, it is not needed to support the required BB. I personally would much prefer to have my BB colony in a box I can move around, clean as needed, and so on. The downside of course is that if flow gets interrupted, your BB could die off. This is one advantage in-tank biofiltration has (like the hydro sponges, or a partitioned chunk of tank as a 'sump')

To address what someone said about a sump supporting your BB for a while even when the pump dies because it has heaters in it - well, great but your fish get chilled in that case. BB don't need tropical temperatures to live anyway, so unless your house is quite cool, this shouldn't be of much concern.

If you want a rule of thumb for a completely bare tank, with "no" BB growing in it, it is very difficult because of different BB capacities of different media. You are also not generally sizing your filter by the size of the tank but by the size of the bio load. I would suggest that a gallon of pea gravel or bioballs for a 100gal tank is probably a reasonable amount depending on stocking. Filter floss or sponges have more surface area so you wouldn't need as much. Basically a pair of AC110's filled with pea gravel, or something like a Rena XP3.

The "turnover" debate is another great one actually. Some people say 10x, soem say 5. I think it has a LOT to do with your configuration and your stock. I personally get much more out of running a relatively small filter pump (3-4x turnover) and having a small powerhead in the tank to prevent waste settlement. If you have something like rays it's suggested that you run a high turnover to make sure the ammonia spikes are dealt with as quickly as possible, although in this case it's widely held that dilution is the best solution. As someone else said as well, it's quite easy to keep water parameters in check with an undergravel setup driven by airstones. What kind of turnover do you suppose that runs? 1-2?

 

[Sab_Fan]

don't use any bio-media . . . have planted tanks, let nature take it's course

yes, I know there is bio-activity because of the substrate, etc., but I don't use any additional bio-media, whether bio-balls, ceramic rings, et al . . .

 

[NOLAGT]

don't use any bio-media . . . have planted tanks, let nature take it's course

yes, I know there is bio-activity because of the substrate, etc., but I don't use any additional bio-media, whether bio-balls, ceramic rings, et al . . .

I was going to toss plants into the mix but thats a whole different ball game lol. I knew someone that had only plants in the tank...no filter or pump at all....almost bio-cube ish. 5 gal...few fish lights...fully planted and a heater.

 

[Toby_H]

Originally Posted by nc_nutcase
I'm confident that a typical aquarium's "bio needs" could be met using powerheads to move the water and allowing bacteria to grow on walls, substrate and decor...

I've seen plenty of tanks fail if the canister dies but the in tank power heads are working so I don't agree.

In the situations you have seen tanks fail... the system was relying on bacteria in both the filter and the tank... then the filter was removed, thus meaning a significant portion of the bacteria was removed... thus the tank failed...

But if the tank was cycled with no filter, just powerheads and decor... this is a totally different situation, and this is the situation I mentioned in my above quote...

Details matter :-D

 

[Toby_H]

I recently did an experiment with a 10 gallon bare bottomed tank with nothing more than a heater and an airstone in it… This set up had slightly under 1,000 square inches of surface area in it…


I seeded the tank with mature ‘bio media’ from a mature tank as I started my fishless cycle… then removed the seed material a week or so in and continued the fishless cycle…


About a week or so later I could add 5ppm of ammonia to the tank and 12 hours later there was 0 ammonia and 0 nitrite…


I did not attempt adding more than 5ppm at a time, since high concentrations of ammonia is toxic to the Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria… My schedule did not allow regularly dosing twice per day…


It’s hard to pull an equation out of this experiment, but I feel it serves as a pretty darn good example. 5ppm ammonia daily is a very high level of ammonia and can represent a very heavily stocked tank… and it was oxidized by the amount of bacteria that grew in a bare tank environment…


I highly encourage others to challenge what I am saying by performing their own version of this experiment. All it takes is a 10 gallon tank, an air pump and some ammonia. Which I’m sure I’m not that only one that had such things laying around…


If I were to pull any kind of equation out of this experiment… it would be that bio media is not at all needed, unless you have an absolutely bare overstocked tank… and even then you likely won’t “need” it, but in support of avoiding minimum requirements, I’d still suggest using it…


It was with this experience that I made the suggestion… a typical aquarium could function with no filters and just power heads…

 

[Bderick67]

Hmmm... no bio media needed. Yet there are numerous threads on here and other forums of people with endless ammonia and nitrite problems. Many of these people seem to be running filters that typically have no intended area to cultivate bacteria. Filters that only have carbon and filter floss and when replaced regularly, seem to go through endless mini cycles.

Not sure if I have overdone my "bio" on my tanks or not. My water params are top notch, fish are healthy and tanks are stable. As for the money wasted buying high dollar bio media, well that 60-80 bucks is a very small fraction of the money that has been spent by myself in this hobby.

 

[Jgray152]

who says you need to waste it? I put fish in my 55g wet/dry hooked to my 100g tank, after all there's plenty of room for mollies and platies in there.

Most of the time sumps are not visible. So why have fish in the sump when you can't enjoy them.

Hmmm... no bio media needed. Yet there are numerous threads on here and other forums of people with endless ammonia and nitrite problems. Many of these people seem to be running filters that typically have no intended area to cultivate bacteria. Filters that only have carbon and filter floss and when replaced regularly, seem to go through endless mini cycles.

I think this is where both arguments from both sides come together. Maybe inside the filter is a better environment for them. If you provide that better environment that bacteria may thrive in that environment quicker than just in the tank where a lot of the BB in the gravel or decora may get disturbed and sucked into the filter. The filter with the right media can capture that BB or the BB can latch on to that media.

I think part of the better environment would be the fact that there is more volume of toxins being passed by the BB in a filter than if the BB is in the gravel or on decora with an extremely low volume of toxins passing by due to the very low current in the tank.

If you were using no filter than possibly you wouldn't have to worry at all because no matter what, the BB would stay in the tank.

I think its better to have a place for the bacteria to thrive outside of the tank for this main reason. Have some media (any type of media) that is kept undisturbed.

 

[frz]

i have to agree that simple sponge filters are more than capable at taking care of bio-filtration. case in point is discus hans setup. the discus is reportedly a very difficult fish to keep & requires very clean water. if you look at hans's filtration setup, all he uses is water dripping on a sponge.