Substitute for Filter Sock?

[PIPSTER]

I don't plan on using a filter sock for normal tank operation, but since starting my tank last week, I have a constant cloud of fine sand\dust being suspended in the water column. It clears after a day or two, but if I barely stir the sand, which is oolite sugar fine, or disturb the water around the rock, a fine cloud of white dust gets blown into the water and fogs it up all over again :angryfire:

I've read where people just put a filter sock, or ordinary foot sock over a powerhead temporarily to just filter out that silt. I don't see any filter socks that would fit (too big opening, 4 inches). Somebody said they put ordinary foot socks over their powerhead and it worked. I'm worried about fuzzies and fibers from a "real" sock getting into my tank, as well as any laundry detergents or unwanted chemicals. Any other alternative ideas? I'm guessing the filter would have to be really fine, because of how small the dust particles are.

Also, my powerhead is 800 GPH for a 40B tank. I think it's a bit too much, and am debating getting 400-500 GPH. No SPS planned for this tank, only LPS and zoas, and I don't want little fish getting blown around too much, too.

 

[oblio]

IMO i would be more concerned with the detergent that is in the sock morso than any fuzzies. Wash the sock out real well in RO water and it seems you should be fine.

 

[sfoister]

Grab a filter sock to use for when you plan to stir up the sand for any reason. I don't plan on having a sock 100% of the time either. But when I work around an area that may kick up a storm I put the sock on, then take it off the next day.

 

[uncleof6]

I don't plan on using a filter sock for normal tank operation, but since starting my tank last week, I have a constant cloud of fine sand\dust being suspended in the water column. It clears after a day or two, but if I barely stir the sand, which is oolite sugar fine, or disturb the water around the rock, a fine cloud of white dust gets blown into the water and fogs it up all over again :angryfire:

I've read where people just put a filter sock, or ordinary foot sock over a powerhead temporarily to just filter out that silt. I don't see any filter socks that would fit (too big opening, 4 inches). Somebody said they put ordinary foot socks over their powerhead and it worked. I'm worried about fuzzies and fibers from a "real" sock getting into my tank, as well as any laundry detergents or unwanted chemicals. Any other alternative ideas? I'm guessing the filter would have to be really fine, because of how small the dust particles are.

Also, my powerhead is 800 GPH for a 40B tank. I think it's a bit too much, and am debating getting 400-500 GPH. No SPS planned for this tank, only LPS and zoas, and I don't want little fish getting blown around too much, too.

Forgot to rinse your sand before putting it in? Quite honestly, you should not be stirring up your sand bed in the first place. This disrupts and destroys any bacterial activity that may be occurring (or just getting started.) Leave it alone, and stop stirring it. Easy solution.

The easy way to get rid of the "silt" is with a diatom filter, and a gravel vac, with the pump set low enough that you only pull the silt up rather than the sand grains. This of course will disrupt bacterial activity as well. Then leave it alone.

The idea behind using oolitic sand, other than it looking cool, is particulates do not easily penetrate the bed, rather end up on the surface (they shouldn't as the flow rate should be high enough to prevent that,) to be scavenged up by appropriately chosen critters. Eliminating the need to mess with the sand bed.

 

[PIPSTER]

I rinsed the sand 4X first before putting it in the tank.
I don't purposely stir up the sand, I was just using that for an example about how easily it re-clouded the tank. I agree and am aware about undisturbing the sand. I think it was the powerhead, because I directed it at the middle of the tank (It was pointing at the other back corner across from the back of the tank from itself), and this morning was the clearest the water has ever been. At the same time, though, I added some "fake" crab meat to help the cycle kick off better at the same time last night because I've went 5 days without seeing any ammonia, and am wondering if the bacteria is starting to grow on the sand and weigh it down some. I've read that helps, too. I adjusted my powerhead back to its original position this morning as an experiment, so when I get home, if it's cloudy again, I'll know what to blame. I hope it's clear, because I'm reading plenty of people have fine sand in a 40B with 800+ GPH powerheads with clear water.

 

[jeffdenney]

I have a 40b with 2000ish gph turnover in display... sand doesnt fly around as long as i dont turn my line loc towards the substrate...


I have also used foot socks ziptied to my overflow tubes to filter out junk when i do big cleanings.. works best on the syphon tube if u have a bean animal setup... since 95%+ of flow goes through syphon pipe.

I just bleached a few socks and then put them in rodi with dechlorinator(prime) for a while and then dried them... havent seen any adverse effects in over 5 months..

i only run them when i do big cleanings.. vacumm substrate or move live rock... just to catch major debris.. only leave them on for two days usually..

 

[FraggledRock]

i made my own diy "socks" of fine mesh material i bought for a 1$ a yeard at the fabric shop. it is kind of like bridal veil fabric, white no colors and it helped clear up aragonite sand cloudiness and captures fine food particle without getting too clogged like typical felt socks do.

 

[uncleof6]

I rinsed the sand 4X first before putting it in the tank.
I don't purposely stir up the sand, I was just using that for an example about how easily it re-clouded the tank. I agree and am aware about undisturbing the sand. I think it was the powerhead, because I directed it at the middle of the tank (It was pointing at the other back corner across from the back of the tank from itself), and this morning was the clearest the water has ever been. At the same time, though, I added some "fake" crab meat to help the cycle kick off better at the same time last night because I've went 5 days without seeing any ammonia, and am wondering if the bacteria is starting to grow on the sand and weigh it down some. I've read that helps, too. I adjusted my powerhead back to its original position this morning as an experiment, so when I get home, if it's cloudy again, I'll know what to blame. I hope it's clear, because I'm reading plenty of people have fine sand in a 40B with 800+ GPH powerheads with clear water.

A tank with rock and sand is going to sit there and just look at you, and nothing else. So you are right, it needs to be kick started. I don't think that imitation crab is any better of an idea than raw shrimp, and raw shrimp is a really bad idea.

The two methods for fishless cycling (i don't like the word cycling) are Pure Ammonia, (5 drops per 10 gallon) or Flake fish food. (ground up between fingers, and/or mixed with water, and tossed in the tank.) The problem with pure ammonia is actually getting pure ammonia.

The object is to drive the ammonia up to ~ 5ppm, and do so repetitively till the ammonia drops to zero within ~ 8 - 12 hours. (4 - 6 weeks.) This is real, solid, "cycling" not the mythical "live rock" cycling.

 

[PIPSTER]

I think I said it before, but I've been putting in fish food flakes every day since Sunday...still no ammonia yet.

 

[uncleof6]

Got a nitrite kit? Test for that. If that reads zero, check the nitrates, if that reads zero, replace the kits and start over. Something has got to give you a reading. If you get nitrate readings, after just a week, with zeros for the other two, you are not hitting it hard enough with the flake food.

You have to look at it like this. 5ppm is a fatal dose in an aquarium, and much higher than you would find in a normal system. But that is the point. It is not going to drop to zero instantly, rather best case would be 8 - 12 hours, which is the goal. So you could "flake" it tonight, check it mid morning tomorrow, and miss the whole thing. It is possible. Not very likely within the first couple of weeks though.

 

[PIPSTER]

To give you the full gamut...

I rinsed the sand multiple times, then stored it still wet in a 5 gallon bucket for about 2.5 weeks. I don't know if that impacted any cycling, it was dry sand, but smelled a bit like the lake (fishy) to me while I was rinsing it.

I placed the dry rock and sand in the tank last Friday night, and started filling the tank with RO\DI water. Finished filling with RO\DI Saturday morning, put salt in Saturday night, after the heater had run the temp up to 80*...I later bumped the heater up to 82* just for the cycling period to hasten bacteria growth a little more. I started putting in fish flake food Sunday morning. I tested for ammonia Tuesday night and yesterday morning, with the API result being a slightly greenish yellow, below the 0.25 ppm mark for sure. I also tested pH, which was straight 8. I tested for nitrites Tuesday night, too, and it was zero, pale blue. I didn't bother testing for nitrates, because I figured it would be a waste of time. When I had tested for ammonia again on Thursday, I was expecting a higher reading, because I was putting in 10+ flakes of food once in the morning and once again in the evening - twice daily.
I will test for all, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate tonight and see if anything's new.

I also tested for phosphates on Tuesday, and it was absolutely zero.

I had put the crab food in there because I felt I wasn't getting anywhere with the fish food. I would like to see at least 2-3 ppm, if not 5 ppm ammonia.

I bought a 450 GPH powerhead to try, to see if it doesn't stir the sand so much. It's not that the 800 GPH powerhead blows it up in the water, it just moves it around slightly on the floor, kinda drifting it...probably too much disturbance. The powerhead will arrive next week.

 

[PhaneSoul]

A tank with rock and sand is going to sit there and just look at you, and nothing else. So you are right, it needs to be kick started. I don't think that imitation crab is any better of an idea than raw shrimp, and raw shrimp is a really bad idea.

The two methods for fishless cycling (i don't like the word cycling) are Pure Ammonia, (5 drops per 10 gallon) or Flake fish food. (ground up between fingers, and/or mixed with water, and tossed in the tank.) The problem with pure ammonia is actually getting pure ammonia.

The object is to drive the ammonia up to ~ 5ppm, and do so repetitively till the ammonia drops to zero within ~ 8 - 12 hours. (4 - 6 weeks.) This is real, solid, "cycling" not the mythical "live rock" cycling.

Your halfway correct.

You can cycle a tank with just sand, water, a heater, some flow and rock. There will be plenty of organic material within the rock to feed the bacteria. You don't need to add in a food source, but we are impatient and like to see ammonia spikes for peace of mind, speed and some of us just like to see the world burn.

Real 'solid' cycling is utilizing and building all cycles in the aquarium. Not just the autotrophic bacteria that feed on ammonia and handle the nitrogen cycle. Organics are broken down by heterotrophic bacteria which provide an ammonia source to the autotrophic's. Without incorporating them into the cycle your just asking for a bacterial bloom when you do decide to feed the tank.

Live rock cycling is not a myth. Real already established live rock already has the nitrogen cycle in full swing. When people dose ammonia into a tank with established live rock your causing a mini cycle, your not trying to establish the bacteria for the first time.

It is very possible to grab pounds of live rock from your lfs, throw a tank together and wait a week for bacteria to take care of any die off and add one or two fish without a hitch.

 

[CStrickland]

Do you have a place in the tank where you can fit a filter pad?
I got one that has carbon in it. During, and for an hour after vacuuming my fine sand I stick a chunk of it where there is high flow and it seems to help. When I forget to use it I can see the diff. I tried sort of wrapping it around a powerhead but it interfered with the flow, I could see the water just going past it. I would think a sock would do the same or just spin the same water round and round inside it. Now I just wedge the pad in the rock in front of a ph, and that seems to work better, it catches a good amount of crud.

I think you're right about the bacteria weighing it down too, after a few weeks mine got a lot better.

How deep is your sand? I have 1-2" so I'm not scared to clean it, but I think if yours is much deeper the rules change.

 

[uncleof6]

Your halfway correct.

You can cycle a tank with just sand, water, a heater, some flow and rock. There will be plenty of organic material within the rock to feed the bacteria. You don't need to add in a food source, but we are impatient and like to see ammonia spikes for peace of mind, speed and some of us just like to see the world burn.

Real 'solid' cycling is utilizing and building all cycles in the aquarium. Not just the autotrophic bacteria that feed on ammonia and handle the nitrogen cycle. Organics are broken down by heterotrophic bacteria which provide an ammonia source to the autotrophic's. Without incorporating them into the cycle your just asking for a bacterial bloom when you do decide to feed the tank.

Live rock cycling is not a myth. Real already established live rock already has the nitrogen cycle in full swing. When people dose ammonia into a tank with established live rock your causing a mini cycle, your not trying to establish the bacteria for the first time.

It is very possible to grab pounds of live rock from your lfs, throw a tank together and wait a week for bacteria to take care of any die off and add one or two fish without a hitch.

Yep. That is the myth, pretty much verbatim. You end up with a weak bottom end. You need to drive the system spike it, so the populations of autotrophs increase. Why? Because the ammonia is toxic, not the organics from which it is derived. Ammonia is the after product of heterotrophs. The reproductive rate (double the population) is far shorter for heterotrophs, than autotrophs, so you drive/build the autotrophs, and need not be concerned with the heterotrophs.

There is so much mis-information floating around the forums on this topic, it is really hard to stay ahead of it. The impatience is shown by people believing you can "cycle" a tank in a week. Just looking at population growth rates, precludes that from possibility.

 

[PhaneSoul]

What is so mythical about it? Just because you can't test for it doesn't mean it's there.

 

[CStrickland]

Yep. That is the myth, pretty much verbatim. You end up with a weak bottom end. You need to drive the system spike it, so the populations of autotrophs increase. Why? Because the ammonia is toxic, not the organics from which it is derived. Ammonia is the after product of heterotrophs. The reproductive rate (double the population) is far shorter for heterotrophs, than autotrophs, so you drive/build the autotrophs, and need not be concerned with the heterotrophs.

There is so much mis-information floating around the forums on this topic, it is really hard to stay ahead of it. The impatience is shown by people believing you can "cycle" a tank in a week. Just looking at population growth rates, precludes that from possibility.

It isn't clear which part of the quote you disagree with, but it sounds like you are saying the only successful way to cycle a tank is to drive the autotrophs to a population that can process 5 ppm ammo in 12 hours. If that were true there wouldn't be very many tanks around because not many people do this.

I agree that there are plenty of reasons not to go nuts stocking a week old tank, but I don't think that lacking a massive cushion of autotrophs that are just waiting for something to die is the best one. Conversely, I would not expect that massive cushion to prevent a crash in a tank that used ammo processing rate as the sole indicator of ability to sustain life.

 

[uncleof6]

It isn't clear which part of the quote you disagree with, but it sounds like you are saying the only successful way to cycle a tank is to drive the autotrophs to a population that can process 5 ppm ammo in 12 hours. If that were true there wouldn't be very many tanks around because not many people do this.

I agree that there are plenty of reasons not to go nuts stocking a week old tank, but I don't think that lacking a massive cushion of autotrophs that are just waiting for something to die is the best one. Conversely, I would not expect that massive cushion to prevent a crash in a tank that used ammo processing rate as the sole indicator of ability to sustain life.

It is not that these tanks can't exist, it is what you have to go through to get there. Since as you say, "not many do this," it means that not many would really know. Consequently it would follow that not many would challenge the myth, and their voice would be considered a minority. Since the hobby is largely popularity driven, it follows....

 

[CStrickland]

you mean like you are in a minority advocating the ammo spike as a better way to cycle, challenging the myth?

This is real, solid, "cycling" not the mythical "live rock" cycling.

If you feel like explaining, what do you think is better about it? Or I see you have a lot of posts, a link would be super if you explained it elsewhere. For example, could you clarify the downside "what you have to go through" of the old way? I gather testability is a benefit of your way, to be "sure" the tank's ready, but OTOH I don't really get why a tank should need to process that much ammo after a week. What do you think is the worst that could happen if the tank could only process 4 ppm ammo when the first fish went in? Also, a lot of people say 2 pm in 24 hrs, how did you arrive at 5?

I've been reading a lot of tank crash threads, obvy not as many as you have. I'm starting to think the whole cycle debate is an easy target to go back and forth on because we can measure ammo so easy. But when tanks crash in the first few months, it seems more commonly a function of harder to test things like oxygen deprivation, haste, disregard of stock needs, overestimation of thinks like stability or micro-nutrient levels, or plain noob error.

I wonder if the benefit of testability with the ammo spike method gives a false sense of security. Like it will tell you if your tank is not ready to stock, but is misused if it is read to say that the tank is ready.

 

[uncleof6]

I don't really want to go round and round about this. The information is out there, if you care to look for it. You don't have to.

 

[PhaneSoul]

Thing is spiking ammonia, using a food source like shrimp, using dry rock with no food and using established live rock are all different ways to cycle a tank. There is no myth to any of them. They all get you to almost the same place. There are pros and cons to each and pros and cons to each after the cycle. But to say one or another method doesn't work or that it's a myth is incorrect and you are further providing false information. Yes the info is searchable out there, plenty of success stories of each method working. And since it's of the best interest to start stocking slowly no matter what route you take, the only difference in the end is how many nutrients it took to get there and how many nutrients you have to adjust for after the cycle.