Biological Filter Heart Of A Tank?
- Thread starter Sora
- Start date
Miss Wiggle
Practically perfect in every way
my view is take it out and use the space for more bio-media
others will undoubtedly disagree though, I don't think we've ever managed to reach a consensus about Carbon except that you should read around the forums and make up your own mind!
waterdrop
Enthusiastic "Re-Beginner"
Carbon!
LOL, this always happens! The filter function that's really of least importance to the beginner ends up getting discussed the most because its confusing. The most important thing for beginners to understand is that carbon is not necessary for their fishless cycle or for normal everyday filter use, but that its good to remember that carbon is a good thing and a powerful tool to pull out of the fishy supply chest when needed.
I guess it gets discussed so much because its always a shock to those of us who thought it was an essential ingredient of a good filter all these years (I certainly fell into that category years ago) but it turns out its not regularly needed. It also gets discussed because its been a regular money maker for the LFS and they naturally keep encouraging it.
I should jump in and agree with MW and the others on the basic info on carbon. It doesn't actually hurt the bio function to have carbon in a filter, the bacteria will grow on it just fine - its just that its not optimal for the job. My own opinion is that the worst mismatch in function is that carbon usually crumbles after a bit and you begin to lose your hard-earned bacteria. Sponges and ceramics don't crumble for years and years, making them a more optimal media for the bio function.
The "3-day and then leach" issue with carbon was discussed with some finality I thought, somewhere recently, perhaps in the scientific section. For the chemicals it can "adsorb," carbon will remove them from the water for about 3 days and then generally reach equilibrium. At that point, for a given individual chemical, the level of that chemical will remain in an equilibrium... if the level of that chemical goes lower in the water, then the carbon will release some of what it has adsorbed.. if the level of that chemical goes higher and the carbon can adsorb some more (if!) then it will. So I would slightly modify our description of the situation as a lack of understanding on some people's parts rather than a controversey. Maybe someone can find the actual scientific discussion which no doubt said it better, lol.
Arrgh! For Sora and jmns and other beginners who are reading, this is so much less important of course than the Fishless Cycling that Corleone was talking about. Its the old frustration of just so much new to learn in the beginning!
~~waterdrop~~
LOL, this always happens! The filter function that's really of least importance to the beginner ends up getting discussed the most because its confusing. The most important thing for beginners to understand is that carbon is not necessary for their fishless cycle or for normal everyday filter use, but that its good to remember that carbon is a good thing and a powerful tool to pull out of the fishy supply chest when needed.
I guess it gets discussed so much because its always a shock to those of us who thought it was an essential ingredient of a good filter all these years (I certainly fell into that category years ago) but it turns out its not regularly needed. It also gets discussed because its been a regular money maker for the LFS and they naturally keep encouraging it.
I should jump in and agree with MW and the others on the basic info on carbon. It doesn't actually hurt the bio function to have carbon in a filter, the bacteria will grow on it just fine - its just that its not optimal for the job. My own opinion is that the worst mismatch in function is that carbon usually crumbles after a bit and you begin to lose your hard-earned bacteria. Sponges and ceramics don't crumble for years and years, making them a more optimal media for the bio function.
The "3-day and then leach" issue with carbon was discussed with some finality I thought, somewhere recently, perhaps in the scientific section. For the chemicals it can "adsorb," carbon will remove them from the water for about 3 days and then generally reach equilibrium. At that point, for a given individual chemical, the level of that chemical will remain in an equilibrium... if the level of that chemical goes lower in the water, then the carbon will release some of what it has adsorbed.. if the level of that chemical goes higher and the carbon can adsorb some more (if!) then it will. So I would slightly modify our description of the situation as a lack of understanding on some people's parts rather than a controversey. Maybe someone can find the actual scientific discussion which no doubt said it better, lol.
Arrgh! For Sora and jmns and other beginners who are reading, this is so much less important of course than the Fishless Cycling that Corleone was talking about. Its the old frustration of just so much new to learn in the beginning!
~~waterdrop~~
Miss Wiggle
Practically perfect in every way
well said WD 
keep the carbon in, take the carbon out, do whatever you feel like with it but make sure you do a fishless cycle!
hadn't spotted that carbon discussion (or if i had i've either not understood it or forgotten about it
) will go and have a look now.
keep the carbon in, take the carbon out, do whatever you feel like with it but make sure you do a fishless cycle!
hadn't spotted that carbon discussion (or if i had i've either not understood it or forgotten about it
) will go and have a look now.waterdrop
Enthusiastic "Re-Beginner"
gad, I probably can't find it myself...
(gee you're maddening.. takes me a half hour to write my wordy blurb and when I hit the submit key it immediately posts with you having read it and given your answer )
(gee you're maddening.. takes me a half hour to write my wordy blurb and when I hit the submit key it immediately posts with you having read it and given your answer
)
Miss Wiggle
Practically perfect in every way
tee hee,
i used to do admin, these fingers can do 150 - 200 words per minute
fastest fingers in west yorkshire
i used to do admin, these fingers can do 150 - 200 words per minute
fastest fingers in west yorkshire
jnms
Fish Crazy
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
hehe - it's one of those topics then.
Well the carbon comes with the Fluval 305, so I just put it in. I am happy to get some more bio-media though. Only reason I ask is, would taking the carbon out now, set the fishless cycle back?
Well the carbon comes with the Fluval 305, so I just put it in. I am happy to get some more bio-media though. Only reason I ask is, would taking the carbon out now, set the fishless cycle back?
Miss Wiggle
Practically perfect in every way
it's unlikely to make a significant difference to the cycle.
may set you back a day or two but won't make a big impact on it.
If you do plan on replacing it though i'd say better to do it now rather than down the line, then by the time you've done your fishless cycle all the bacteria you have will stay.
waterdrop
Enthusiastic "Re-Beginner"
Agreed, sooner is better than later.
jnms, how would you describe the media in your 305 (look & feel, relative percentages etc.)?
jnms, how would you describe the media in your 305 (look & feel, relative percentages etc.)?
jnms
Fish Crazy
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok I will most likely get the media replaced then. I planned on reading the filter media article shortly, but didn't consider doing a media change until after the cycle.
Waterdrop, my current media is as follows. I have 6 media baskets in the canister, the bottom 2 both contain 'Bio-Max' fluval's biological media. The middle two baskets have one bio-max and one carbon. The top two baskets have 2 carbon. There are also two sponges in the side filter slot of the canister.
Here are images of the media:
Waterdrop, my current media is as follows. I have 6 media baskets in the canister, the bottom 2 both contain 'Bio-Max' fluval's biological media. The middle two baskets have one bio-max and one carbon. The top two baskets have 2 carbon. There are also two sponges in the side filter slot of the canister.
Here are images of the media:
aaronnorth
www.ukaps.org
i have the 4 spnges, and 3 trays of biomax in my both of my fluval 205's
then 5 sponges and half a cannister of biomax in my eheim 2215 classic. I never bother with chemcical filtration.
then 5 sponges and half a cannister of biomax in my eheim 2215 classic. I never bother with chemcical filtration.
waterdrop
Enthusiastic "Re-Beginner"
See, there ya go, aaron has some pretty nice tanks too I think 
So lets see.. The 305 is a pretty big cannister I think, so if you've already bought a LOT of carbon, there should be nothing wrong with using up -some- of it (maybe reducing it to one little tray or something) if you wanted to reduce the amount to be left stored on your supply shelf. Or if there's plenty of room on your shelf you could just move in the direction described by aaron... I think the Fluval Biomax media is quite good stuff as far as I know, a good example of ceramic ring tech (you understand why they make them in rings?) You might want to consider some form of ceramic pebbles (I know the eheim "ehfi substrat pro" (well, I forget if thats the pebble or the ring type ehfi...) is maybe a popular one) if you have to pick up some more ceramics. Or sponges, if you can find good size sponges that could be cut down to fit snugly in the tray compartments (you want to always be thinking in the back of your mind that you want to enhance the mechanical debris catching function by keeping the media a snug fit but without doing something that will cut flow down.)
~~waterdrop~~
So lets see.. The 305 is a pretty big cannister I think, so if you've already bought a LOT of carbon, there should be nothing wrong with using up -some- of it (maybe reducing it to one little tray or something) if you wanted to reduce the amount to be left stored on your supply shelf. Or if there's plenty of room on your shelf you could just move in the direction described by aaron... I think the Fluval Biomax media is quite good stuff as far as I know, a good example of ceramic ring tech (you understand why they make them in rings?) You might want to consider some form of ceramic pebbles (I know the eheim "ehfi substrat pro" (well, I forget if thats the pebble or the ring type ehfi...) is maybe a popular one) if you have to pick up some more ceramics. Or sponges, if you can find good size sponges that could be cut down to fit snugly in the tray compartments (you want to always be thinking in the back of your mind that you want to enhance the mechanical debris catching function by keeping the media a snug fit but without doing something that will cut flow down.)
~~waterdrop~~
aaronnorth
www.ukaps.org
i have heard about sintered glass media, that is more porous than biomax (and more expensive) i think JBL do it.
waterdrop
Enthusiastic "Re-Beginner"
You know, I think I'm remembering that Seachem "Matrix" is a sintered glass pebble media product. There was some sort of discussion about it that surprised me because I had thought it would be the best biomedia for me, but in the discussion it seemed that the seachem matrix was for some reason not really the best for the basic type of biomedia I needed - I think rdd1952 was in on that discussion but now I can't remember what the distinction was...
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
369 -
229 -
212 -
199 -
198 -
194 -
184 -
141 -
128 -
126 -
108 -
101 -
91 -
91 -
86