Killing the Cannister Filter Myth

lol the only person that really seemed to disagree with the fact that used correctly canisters can be good was Dragon_slayer, and he seemed got shot down on pretty much every front.
 
Thanks BCreefmaker,
But I think that I may not have been clear enough either. A lot of people who keep larger reefs or who have the option of incorporating sumps into their system felt like I was saying that canister filters are the way to go. The truth is, they aren't. I believe that sumps are the way to go. See the pics of my current build if you doubt that:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9468676#post9468676

When it comes to small nano tanks though, yes - a canister filter makes a lot of sense. I took an eheim canister designed for FW aquariums up to 160gals (or so they say. wouldn't try it) and put it on a 2gal nano. In so doing, I doubled the water volume in my system, and doubled the amount of my LR - these are significant gains for folks like us. And it helped me achieve a less-cluttered look.

If you are in the position where you have to use a HOB filter - as it appears a lot of nanoreefers are - then this message was for you. If you were planning on putting chunks of LR in a HOB, put them in a canister instead. You don't even have to call it a canister filter (to avoid people fighting with you) - just call it your supersized HOB filter that you relocated to the floor ;) .
Cheers,

- Chad
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9496038#post9496038 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BCreefmaker
lol the only person that really seemed to disagree with the fact that used correctly canisters can be good was Dragon_slayer, and he seemed got shot down on pretty much every front.


I don't see that any of his points have been "shot down."
His points are valid. If anything it is the approach he used that is questionable (very aggressive.) As far as the canister filter myth goes, it's just that, a myth. There is and has never been anything wrong with a canister filter. The problem is with the filter users. Look at all the people that use non-fluidizing media reactors. Those are canister filters with the pump being external as opposed to being built in and you never see anyone saying not to use them because they are nitrate factories. Like ever other filter they have their own strengths and weaknesses.
 
well like you said dave, the points he was making was mostly in relation to larger reef tanks. he was just trying to sell us the idea that more LR rubble was bad which i cannot see why because as he pointed out later that the LR donset even do most of the filtering in nano's it can only go so far , its water changes that work the magic...
 
He was just pointing out that the rubble, due to its size, would not offer any denitrifying capabilities. He also mentioned that it would offer more surface area for nitrification. I happen to agree.
The problem with small aquariums are that it is easy to overwhelm the filtering abilities of the rock and sand present due to the small size and the greater likelihood that the aquariums will be overstocked. I like small aquariums but they do have their own unique problems.

Here are some pictures of some I've kept that range from .5 gal to 2.5 gals.

59396all_picos_rc.JPG


5939622_rc.jpg


59396Aqua_Vase.JPG
 
If LR rubble has more surface area for nitrification.....
then great, that is an awesome reason to be using it. If you have nitrate readings in your tank, that is because you have too much pollution in your tank... not because you have too much LR or LR rubble in your tank. To control nitrates, you can use nutrient export (eg, macro algae growth, water changes), or you can employ different strategies to encourage anaerobic denitrification (dsb, coil, large LR), or you can reduce the waste that is introduced into the system (lighter stocking levels & feedings), or do a better job of removing it before it begins to break down (better skimming etc). However, removing LR or LR rubble from your tank will not improve your water quality... it will hurt it bad. This is because the nitrifying bacteria are helping you... it's not their fault that you are getting the readings you are getting... the problem is whatever's going on in the system that is providing them with so much food. Reducing the amount of beneficial bacteria will not do anything to address the cause of that problem. You can't improve your water by trying to limit the amount of nitrifying bacteria...
I have actually learned a lot from this discussion - especially about the denitrification capabilities of LR. After hearing about why larger rocks are essential for denitrification, I am a little discouraged to say that I don't think it is very helpful to us with nanos. For example. choose the largest rock in your tank - now picture that every part of the rock that is exposed to oxygen rich water is colonized by nitrifying bacteria to a depth of 2-3" (as has been explained). If you were to shave off 2-3" of every part of that rock that was exposed to oxygenated water - bearing in mind all the indentations and holes and tunnels through it - how much of that rock would be left? Anything? A sliver? That is the denitrifying region of your rock. Now look at all the nitrifying region that your have shaved off. In a nano tank, I would really be surprised if any of our aquascaping rocks have those denitrifiying regions - regardless of whether they are solid pieces or broken up rubble.
If you really had you heart set on denitrification via LR, then I would respectfully submit that you can still fit a much larger piece of rock in a canister than you could in a HOB filter (in fact, I could have fit a much larger pice of rock in my canister filter than I could have in my whole tank). Realistically though, I think we are stuck to taking the approach of limiting the amount of nutrients introduced into the system and of controlling our nitrates via nutrient export - like our good old water changes.


just dave,

I have to say that that is an amazing collection of nanos, I would love to have a set like that! First class job on all of them - you should be proud.
And great point about the problem being with canister filter users/practices and not with the filter (wish I had thought of something as succinct as that without rambling on :rolleyes: )
Edit: and so does everyone else...

_ Chad
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9497268#post9497268 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BCreefmaker
well you would assume thats what people would expect in a nano fourm :D

That's what I thought, but everyone kinda cruises around checking out the other forums.
I should have posted the dislaimer "This information is Nano-specific".

Cheers Bro,

- Chad
 
He was just pointing out that the rubble, due to its size, would not offer any denitrifying capabilities. He also mentioned that it would offer more surface area for nitrification. I happen to agree.
true, but thats saying the filter is causing the problem when it really dosent. the problem there is the tank is over stocked, and you should probably do more then 10% a week and/or skim. but is the rate of ammonia to nitrite conversion faster then nitrite to nitrate?
 
I find the idea that rubble in a cannister filter has no anaerobic nitrification questionable. How far "into" the rock does water have to diffuse for anaerobic denitrification to occur ? I've seen no studies that give a specific figure. Is it a 1/8th inch or 2 inches ? If it's an eighth inch, rubble is far superior the large pieces that have less area. If it's two inches rubble is completely worthless.

In addition cannister filters are by design oxygen starved. The only oxygen provided is by the water introduced as there's no air water interface. I suspect that changes the dynamics of the anaerobic denitrification process.

Since AFAIK there are no studies of optimal denitrification by live rock media in cannister filters I guess I'll accept the real life experiences of fellow reefers until proven wrong.
 
Chad,

My most trouble free tank has rubble in a HOB filter and DSB in a ten gallon tank. Depending on who you ask, neither is supposed to work :lol:
 
Haha... that's true. I guess we all just assume that what people say doesn't work, doesn't. It's a good thing that people still try to find out for themselves. You still have your mantis?

_ Chad
 
ninjafish -- I didn't see in this thread whether you tested your water for nitrate levels, and if so, what PPM they are typically at (and how often you test). Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but can't argue with facts :) What would really be interesting is a plot of your nitrate levels over time, with a marker for when water changes occur.

FYI - I use a canister for backup filtration (i'd rather deal with higher nitrate levels than ammonia or nitrites!). I do weekly 5 gal water changes, and my nitrate levels are steady between 5 and 10ppm. Interestingly enough, my nitrates were always 0ppm before I added a hippo and yellow tang.
 
Hey hayabusa (sweet bike by the way),
Unfortunately I didn't record my readings after I took them so I can't really reconstruct any charts. What I can tell you is that my two gallon cube showed 0ppm consistantly when it was stocked with porcelain crab and sexy shrimps. After I added the mantis shrimp I noticed that my levels would climb up to about 5ppm by the end of the week. Once a month, the week after I pruned my chaeto I would sometimes hit 10ppm right before my water change. After that the level would return to normal (I assumed because the chaeto had again 'caught up'). When I switched the setup over to the 7.5gal cube with larger canister, my readings always came back as 0ppm (same stocking level as when it was a 2gal - mantis, doomed hermits, and corals).
You are doing awesome with your nitrates so low with a couple big consumers like you have. I had a yellow tang in my 90 - it was a beautiful fish, but it was a poop machine.
Cheers,
- Chad
 
Back
Top