to filter sock or not.... that is the question

[joshPensacola]

for real..... do i need these? tank is huge, 800lbs of rock,tons of clean up crew... snails, stars, worms, pods, shrimp, sponge, tunicate, and who knows what else.

do i really need filter socks at this point? could they more likely be doing more harm than good?

the way i was seeing it is that i am putting these in with no bacteria on them. they then sit there and let all the particulate in my tank rot in the sock until it is full and then i start the process over.

not only that but i have a SRO 5000 int skimmer and i run a jumbo reactor with GFO and another reactor with carbon....

 

[tanked37]

Pointless in my opinion. I don't use them...unless of course I'm cleaning my overflow, but that's about it.

 

[Wmich2008]

I run one for a long time but after a while I got sick of cleaning it. I have been running without it for a few months and everything is fine. I also have a large cleanup crew and oversized skimmer. Plus gfo and a refugium.

 

[ca1ore]

I don't bother. Unless you keep up with regular cleaning, I think they actually are detrimental. I tend to run lower flow sumps, and have designed my first chamber as a settling chamber. I did make provision for a sock just in case, but have not run one yet.

 

[dkeller_nc]

I agree that they're not beneficial on a reef tank - you want the critters in the tank or in the sump to eat any uneaten food, and you do occasional maintenance to remove accumulated detritus in the sump.

But, if I was planning a tank, I would definitely incorporate the ability to run a filter sock. They can be quite useful when you need to rapidly clear the water after you re-arrange the rockscape, need to remove or add sand, etc... You can accomplish the same thing with a canister filter, but that's a lot more painful to setup and take down than a simple filter sock.

 

[Laborator]

Don't use them and gave them away, I run a baffle less sump and I just vacuum all the detritus every water change.

IMO they help clear the water but that's it.

 

[eyesinthedrk]

I have 8 filter socks that I swap out every 2 days. When I'm on my last one I toss them in the washing machine which is about every two weeks. I'm sure there are a few OCD reefers that vac their sump at an equal rate but the vast majority do not.

 

[Twistofer]

I've been using them for about 8 years. I run "full bore" at about 750 - 850 gph for my 75 gal aquarium. I change out my rectangular ones about every 2-3 days and wash them in my washing machine. The washing machine is essentially soapless and uses an ozonator to clean my socks and personal clothing.

I like the idea that the heavy stuff is trapped before it hits my skimmer. The price is changing them out and not letting the food, particulate matter and detrius collect.

 

[akitareefer]

I use socks. I see so much junk collect in there and I'm glad its not settling in my sump, clean up crew or not. I do light vacuuming into the sock and change it out every few days. I then wash them cold, gentle and with bleach and give them an extra rinse.

 

[kevin kaplan]

I use 2x200 microns because the 100 microns get clogged and dirty in 1 day. I change them out every 2-3 days and wash them in 1 capful of bleach and rinse them 2 more times. This helps keep the detritus to a minimum in the sump. I like it, but can also see going without it if needed and just vacuuming the sump.

 

[ca1ore]

I think filter socks are like so many other things - a sucessful reef tank can be run with them, and without them. My suspicion, as is so often the case, is thatbitbcomes down to husbandry practices. If you use socks, and are diligent about replacing and cleaning them, they work very well; if you are not so diligent then not using them may be better. It would be fascinating to run two identical tanks and see what effect socks have.

 

[joshPensacola]

There seems to be no more particulate floating in my tank than normal. And water change out of my sump anyways so it will be no big deal to vacuum any detritus out that may build

 

[akitareefer]

What are the sock filter disasters?
Overflowing that could cause leaks in poorly planned sumps and rotting matter that spikes nitrates? Am I missing anything?

 

[joshPensacola]

I don't have any my only real problem is that I only change them when water overflows from them. and since minimal bacteria builds up in there everything inside basically rots until I swap them. But if I don't use them the detritus gets eaten. My sump is a 100 gallon tank with only one baffle and it seems to work great for running no filter sock. If I wanted to I'm sure I could toss an urchin in the first section and let him eat any detritus buildup and I won't have to worry about him clogging up pumps since the first section is only the intake.

And I have had fish go into my overflow and die in the filter sock...if I didn't have one they could easily live in the sump until I noticed them MIA

 

[dkeller_nc]

What are the sock filter disasters?
Overflowing that could cause leaks in poorly planned sumps and rotting matter that spikes nitrates? Am I missing anything?

I'd rather doubt it would be possible to definitively quantitate nitrates originating from uneaten food in a filter sock in a side-by-side reef tank comparison. There are just too many variables (the experiment would have to be run dozens of times for a statistically significant conclusion to be reached). But the theory behind it is sound.

I would say that if one chooses to run filter socks, it would be wise to design and use a holder such that if the filter sock became clogged, it would overflow into the sump.

 

[mrstihl]

Does it really matter if the same material is trapped in a filter sock and rot vs eaten by cleanup crew? Would it not end up turning into the same amount of nitrates and phosphates?

If that is true then advantage goes to filter sock as the aquarist has the option to remove the sock and clean it from time to time eliminating the potential nutrients from the system.

 

[ca1ore]

Does it really matter if the same material is trapped in a filter sock and rot vs eaten by cleanup crew? Would it not end up turning into the same amount of nitrates and phosphates?

I think the difference is that with filter socks, detritus and particulate matter is being constantly 'washed' with high water flow as opposed to sitting in a lower flow area where it can remain in a more stable (i.e. not dissolved) form. Whether this has any differential effect on total dissolved solids/organics is less clear - but it seems like reasonable conjecture to me. Further, if your CUC is consuming these wastes, then some percentage of it gets 'stored' as body mass as opposed to ending up as nitrate or phosphate. Pretty much food chain 101.

 

[Twistofer]

I believe that filter socks are a matter of preference, rather than an absolute must. some like them some don't.

 

[dkeller_nc]

Does it really matter if the same material is trapped in a filter sock and rot vs eaten by cleanup crew? Would it not end up turning into the same amount of nitrates and phosphates?

If that is true then advantage goes to filter sock as the aquarist has the option to remove the sock and clean it from time to time eliminating the potential nutrients from the system.

Well, on the face of it that wouldn't be true - the animals convert food not only to urea or ammonia, but also to biomass, respiratory gases, etc... Besides, I'm more interested in the kind of life that eaten food supports (like fish) than the kind that uneaten food supports (bacteria).

 

[Lostinthedark]

I run filter socks and change them out every other day. Its amazing how much junk comes out of them. If your the type of person who is diligent in cleaning them, I think they are a plus. If they are going to sit there and overflow for a week, your better off letting your cleanup crew handle it.