Killing the Cannister Filter Myth

[ninjafish]

Hello all,
If there is one thing that I can contribute to this hobby, it is putting an end to the phrase "canister filters are not for SW" or "they are nitrate factories".
Some nights I lie awake in bed thinking about all the nano tanks I've seen that would have been really nice if they didn't have a crummy little hang-on filter that has been stuffed with 3/4 of a lb of LR rubble, with a powerhead crammed beside it for extra flow.

The origin of the CF Myth
A canister filter will add nitrates to the water if:
1) You run it with all the crappy filter media and floss that's usually included.
AND
2) You don't clean the filter media properly.

But what if you filled the canister filter with LR rubble (and in my case, chaeto) like you do with your hang-on?
How is that any different? It is different - it's better:
1) the canister filter will hold many times more LR = better filtration capacity
2) will provide more flow, eliminating the need for extra powerheads
3) only the intake and outlets visible in the tank, making the display look much cleaner.

Please pass this on the next time you hear someone say 'canister filters aren't for saltwater'.

Without a canister filter, this tank would not have been possible:
http://www.truenorthreef.com/PicoMovie.wmv

Good luck out there,

- Chad

[dragon_slayer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9471331#post9471331 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ninjafish
...............But what if you filled the canister filter with LR rubble (and in my case, chaeto) like you do with your hang-on? ...........

well there is no doubt that filling it with live rock rubble gives you allot of surface area for nitrifying bacteria to collanate and do the break down all the way to NO3, but there are no low oxygen areas in the rubble with that constant flow of water into the canister filter so there will be no reduction of NO3 and you Will get elevated levels in the system.

now if you stuck Chaeto into the canister you'd be putting it a photosynthetic algae into a no light environment and it would die and when it did it would release nutrients into the system further contributing to poor water quality.......

what part of that is it you aren't grasping??

kc

[ninjafish]

kc,

Haha, someone didn't watch the video link I provided.
I added submersible lights to my canister so that my photosynthetic algae wasn't in a no light environment :p .
Now that's a little bit advanced, and I wasn't suggesting everyone should do that, merely that a canister filter will provide far superiour filtration (and better looks) to the tiny hang on filters that seem to be favoured here in the nano side of the hobby.

And no hard feelings about the 'grasping comment', if I had a nickle for every time I myself jumped to comclusions...

Cheers,
- Chad

[dragon_slayer]

even with the lighting for the macro algae you're still elevating the NO3 levels by using the LR rubble in the canister........

most people use a HOB refuge because it not only provides filtration it also provides microfauna life to the tank. on the cubes that have all 4 sides viewable the canister is a good way to have an 'out of sight' circulation for the tank, but a closed loop is an even better way to get that.

kc

[ninjafish]

KC,
I have never heard the argument for LESS LR and less filtration as a way to reduce NO3. ???
What do you think will happen without that filtration? The nitrifying bacteria are just breaking down ammonia - if you don't filter your water, sure you may never make it to NO3 - you will will be stuck at NH3 which is way worse! That is the whole reason why we filter our tanks in the first place.
You seem to be making the argument for low oxygen or anaerobic filtration - which I seriously doubt anyone with a nano tank has anyways! You sure don't achieve that with a hang on.
The DSB guys do - but that has its own risks and, in my opinion, not worth the trouble. Water changes are the way to go.

A couple other things -
How could a closed loop be better? A canister filter is a closed loop - just a closed loop that has the space for more water volume and filtration capacity.

And as for microfauna - I grew pods inside my canister... there's a heck of a lot more room for culturing microfauna in a canister than there is in a hang on. You might be talking about having the microfauna going through the pump - the fear of that is why many people set up over the tank, gravity refugiums - but the articles I've read suggest that the 'pod vs impeller mortality rate is very very low. I have seen 'pods pop up from my return bulkhead - but I've never seen one that's been chopped in half.

If I was suggesting using a canister filter instead of a sump, then ya, that would be crazy. Check out my latest tank build... I have a sump because I believe that is king. All I am suggesting is using a canister filter instead of the little HOB ones that people use on their nanos - and there is no valid argument against that. Whatever the HOB filter does, the canister will do better.


- Chad

[ccorpse27]

Neither are true closed loops anyway. That's misuse of the term. Essentially all you created is a self contained sump/refugium with a built in pump. That's it. Sure it's creative but you're not dispelling any myths whatsoever.

[ninjafish]

ccorpse,
My mods aren't what the thread is about. The thread, in the nano forum, is pointing out that while many nano users view HOB filters as their only choice for filtration, a cannister filter will provide more filtration, more circulation, more water volume, and look better while it's at it.
I believe that more people would use canisters if they weren't always being told that "canisters are not for SW". This myth is wat I am trying to dispel - actually they are ideally suited for nano tanks.
I don't know what you think a closed loop is, but a cannister filter is a closed loop of plumbing that uses a pump to draw water out of the tank with one hose and blow it back into the tank with the other. It is a closed loop just like any other closed loop - it just has a bulge in the middle of the plumbing. HTH

- Chad

[Driftwood]

I think you are absolutely correct in your statements. If you remove the media from a canister filter and replace with LR then you will be fine. Just be sure to check it every week or so to be sure no junk is building up in the rubble.

Removing the media from a canister and putting in LR is no different then removing the media from a hang on and putting in LR... Duh.

By the way I LOVE your pico tank! It looks like a little cube of the ocean was cut out and placed on your desk.

Dave

[BCreefmaker]

humm sounds good, i was looking for something that would covertly filter a pico im planning. how exactly do you ave it set up? just to play devils advocate the only real diffence i see is that a HOB fuge helps with gas exchange and surface agitation.

[murfman]

I'd rather use Siporax beads instead of lr rubble for something that small.

[Engine 7]

I liked the video except for the chick music. It made me moody and nervous :D

Jeff

[dragon_slayer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9474706#post9474706 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Driftwood
........If you remove the media from a canister filter and replace with LR then you will be fine.

No, bio media in a canister filter and LR are the same thing just in most cases the LR already has the bacteria colonized but the media will self populate in a very short time.

nowhere did i argue that a canister filter can't be used, but no two ways around it, it's going to elevate NO3 levels in the system and in most nano tanks water changes are main means of filtration and water quality control.

the whole point of the original post was that I'm busting the myth that canister filters are nitrate factories!!! and that just hasn't happened. all that was accomplished was the HOB fuge was removed and substituted for an out of site 'closed loop' that still produces elevated NO3 levels and you're still going to be in need of water changes to keep the water quality pristine.

kc

[ninjafish]

Thanks Dave,
For a second there I was starting to think that either I, or the whole world had gone insane. :p

Murf,
I have never even heard of Siporax beads... will have to look into it thanks!

BCreefmaker,
With my setup I had the cannister filter plumbed to bulkheads in the bottom of the tank - inside the cannister filter I had LR and chaeto growing under the submersible lights. I also put a 50w heater inside the canister just to keep the temp up.
In one of the return lines, I had a tee fitting which connected to a topoff pump that injected ro/di water directly into the line.

Engine 7,
LOL is all I can say. And I do agree - the title of the song just fit so well with the theme that I went ahead even though I knew I would catch heat over it :D .

- Chad

[ninjafish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9475919#post9475919 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dragon_slayer
No, bio media in a canister filter and LR are the same thing just in most cases the LR already has the bacteria colonized but the media will self populate in a very short time.

nowhere did i argue that a canister filter can't be used, but no two ways around it, it's going to elevate NO3 levels in the system and in most nano tanks water changes are main means of filtration and water quality control.

the whole point of the original post was that I'm busting the myth that canister filters are nitrate factories!!! and that just hasn't happened. all that was accomplished was the HOB fuge was removed and substituted for an out of site 'closed loop' that still produces elevated NO3 levels and you're still going to be in need of water changes to keep the water quality pristine.

kc


Sorry brother I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this one. If you followed your line of logic, and adding LR to a system actually increases nitrates - then reducing the amount of LR will reduce nitrate levels... should we remove it altogether?
The nitrate doesn't come from the LR - adding more will not increase NO3 levels - it comes from detritus and fish waste. Unless you have an anerobic filter method - which very few people have (and I would guess no one in the nano forum where this thread was intended) - the only way to reduce existant nitrates is through binding them in plant tissues and water changes. If you really want to reduce the amounts, you have to reduce the amount of source waste introduced to the system (eg reducing bioload, feedings).
What ever that waste is - you are not going to increase the amount of nitrates by adding more LR. All other things being equal - a tank with 20lbs of LR will have better water than a tank with only 5lbs... until today I thought that was a universally accepted fact.
The problem with the cannister filter myth is that few people really understand why they allegedly add to nitrates - it is not because they provide increased filtration which elevates the levels as you have suggested. It is because, with conventional media they can trap fish waste and detritus that could have otherwise been removed before they it had a chance to decompose. Trapped in an uncleaned filter they break down and that source waste enters the nitrogen cycle and adds to water pollution. Just like a wet/dry filter - they aren't called "nitrate factories" when they are clean and colonized with bacteria - the problems occur when the bioballs trap solid waste that inturn pollutes the water.
A clean functioning filter will not add to the nitrate problem in an aquarium, that is why we use filters....
I don't know how I can summarize this any better for you. If I have X amount of waste in my system - adding LR will not increase the pollution in the tank - in fact, it will increase the tanks ability to process the waste that is already present.

A filter will make your water better.
LR is good for your tank.

- Chad

[dragon_slayer]

YES if you fill a system with LR rubble and then have high flow across that rubble, you'll get elevated NO3 levels in the system. your canister filter with the rubble in it is just a sized down tank with high flow across small rocks and it is very efficient at breaking down organics all the way to NO3 but that's the end of the line. in large tanks the rocks are large enough they have anaerobic area inside the rocks that support denitrifying bacteria.

my apologies that you can't see the forest for the trees blocking your view.

kc

EDIT: on the comment:

The nitrate doesn't come from the LR - adding more will not increase NO3 levels - it comes from detritus and fish waste.

no, the bacteria on the surface area of the LR is what's breaking down the 'waste' and with there being nothing to finish the cycle you have NO3 as a byproduct left in the system, without those bacteria the detritus and fish waste wouldn't go through the 'Nitrogen Cycle'

[ninjafish]

kc,

Hey I don't want to fight with you.

The "what part of that is it you aren't grasping??" and the "my apologies that you can't see the forest for the trees blocking your view" comments seem like things are getting a little heated.

If you are really arguing against using LR or saying that adding more LR to a system will increase NO3, there is nothing more I can say.
It has been fun to have the debate and I wish you all the best in your reefing endeavors.


For any nano owners reading this thread who believe that LR is beneficial to water quality and try to add more of it by putting it in HOB filters (for whatever reason you might have), I would suggest again that a canister filter provides more room for LR and water volume, and is less intrusive in the tank. And that they will not umm cause problems for you as long as you don't use the small gravel and floss that can trap detritus (or that you keep the media clean if you do use it - too much work for most, and hence the myth).

Cheers,

- Chad

[dragon_slayer]

well I'm sorry but for the life of me i can't see why you have it in your head that adding live rock to a system and adding rubble to a canister filter are one and the same, they are NOT.

rubble has allot of surface area and when placed in the canister filter it acts no different then any other bio media. adding a 5lb rock has filtering capacity, 5 lbs of rubble does not, how much more simpler can that be explained?

you seam pretty hell bent that you're (in your own words) "Killing the Canister Filter Myth" but again you're only fooling yourself, it's no myth, it's a fact. you can try and twist words around all day trying to make it look as if i said adding LR is of no benefit but anyone with even the slightest intellect can fully understand rubble and LR aren't the same. adding LR to your system is beneficial, adding a canister filter full of rubble is not.

kc

[ninjafish]

Hello again kc,
By rubble I just meant pieces of LR that have been broken up to fit inside the canister. As far as surface area, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether the rock is as big as a persons head or as big as a golf ball - LR is porous enough that the bacteria is living all through the rock... not just the edges. This porosity is what contributes to the massive surface area of LR - not just the outside edges. I'm sorry but your last post is the first time you have suggested that there is a difference, filtration wise, between a single piece of LR and multiple, smaller pieces of LR. I have never heard this assertion before and I hope it isn't because I don't have half an intellect. I thought your were saying that LR adds NO3 - I wasn't trying to twist your words. Now you clarified it to state that LR rubble adds NO3. So should people stop using it in their HOB filters too? I don't want to sound like a wise@$$ - I honestly can't see how the bacteria "knows" what sized piece of LR it is on. I can't picture how LR rubble bacteria would process the water differently from bacteria living on 'solid' pieces of LR (which are themselves just larger pieces of broken rocks).

I understand where you are coming from and I can see how it can be confusing.
The bacteria in the LR is what converts waste to nitrates - but that isn't the same thing as saying that LR causes nitrates.
It is confusing but it might help if I give an example - sorry if it is silly but it is the best I can do on short notice.

Garbage trucks are required to convert curbside garbage into landfill waste.

Saying that increasing the amount of LR in a system will increase the amount of NO3 is like saying that increasing the number of garbage trucks will increase the amount of waste in the landfill. The garbage trucks and the LR are the capacity to process the waste - the actual waste comes from the fish and food in the system. Adding LR will not increase NO3, only the system's capacity to process fish poop and detritus - which is converted to NO3 (that's what's got you hung up). The LR can't make NO3 from nothing - it is dependant on the amount of raw waste. If that waste is a fixed amount, you can't keep adding LR to keep increasing your NO3 output - you can't create something from nothing.

Not only does LR not add to nitrates, it actually reduces nitrates. It isn't as efficient at it as a pure anaerobic environment like you suggested, but it still does reduce nitrates. That is why we have LR in our tanks.
Don't believe me? Just read up on LR. Or type "live rock reduce nitrates?" (without the quotes) in google and read what comes up.

To repeat myself for the last time (I hope).

Canister filters have gotten a bad rap as being nitrate factories. I have found this to be a myth and it is likely the result of people running plugged up filters with dirty filter media.
I would like to share with the nanoreefing crowd that a canister filter will provide much better filtration than the HOB filters that most people feel is their only option. To avoid the build up of detritus that has produced this negative stereotype, I recommend just using LR rubble in your media baskets so that the detritus doesn't get trapped and build up.

Summary for anyone who is scratching their head :)

A cannister filter will be less of an eyesore in a nano tank

A cannister filter will allow for more water volume in the system - that's a good thing in terms of stability and water quality.

A cannister filter will allow more room for LR.

LR is a vital component of water quality.

LR lowers nitrate levels

A cannister filter, properly set up and maintained, will not produce nitrates - it will reduce nitrates.



I have never had to work so hard just to help out my peers :(

Best regards,

- Chad

[AIMFish]

I thought this setup looked familiar, is this a second tank or the original? (http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=553708) If it's the original it's been going for a while so end this silly debate and post maintence schedules and water quality readings:thumbsup:

[ninjafish]

Hey AIMFish!
Nice to see a familiar face.

The tank ran for a couple years but I got a mantis shrimp for it:
Video

http://www.truenorthreef.com/mantis.wmv

and realized that I should have a larger tank to properly care for the mantis - hence the glass was swapped out for a larger 12" cube as seen in this video:

http://www.truenorthreef.com/newcube.wmv

I have sold the whole thing in order to raise money for a larger system that I can propagate corals with. Some photos on this page:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9468676#post9468676

I just have noticed lately that most new to the forum get a 5gal tank then think "now I have to get a penguin HOB filter and throw LR rubble in it". From my experience I found that a canister is a better option that people should know about when making their decision. I set mine up to be invisible but that isn't necessary. Just put the intake hose in one corner of the tank and the return in the other and you will still have all the benefits that I mentioned.

Cheers mate,

- Chad

[dragon_slayer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9477799#post9477799 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ninjafish
Hello again kc,
By rubble I just meant pieces of LR that have been broken up to fit inside the canister.

by rubble i mean anything smaller then softball size pieces of LR


As far as surface area, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether the rock is as big as a persons head or as big as a golf ball - LR is porous enough that the bacteria is living all through the rock... not just the edges.

CORRECT, but the part you fail to see is the first 2-3 inches of the rock have nitrifying bacteria that are consuming all the available O2 and the De-nitrifying bacteria colonize the surfaces deeper in the rock. oops, rubble doesn't have these deeper surfaces so no de-nitrification takes place.


This porosity is what contributes to the massive surface area of LR - not just the outside edges. I'm sorry but your last post is the first time you have suggested that there is a difference, filtration wise, between a single piece of LR and multiple, smaller pieces of LR.

no it's not, I've stated in just about every post that rubble doesn't have sufficient mass to form anaerobic regions and it therefore only has the ability to quickly reduce waste to NO3 and then become a nitrate factory when placed in high current environments like your lovely canister filter.

I have never heard this assertion before and I hope it isn't because I don't have half an intellect. I thought your were saying that LR adds NO3 - I wasn't trying to twist your words. Now you clarified it to state that LR rubble adds NO3. So should people stop using it in their HOB filters too?

their HOB filters are low flow and aren't as readily producing NO3 but none the less they are, again water changes are used by 99% of nano tank owners to controll that.

I don't want to sound like a wise@$$ - I honestly can't see how the bacteria "knows" what sized piece of LR it is on. I can't picture how LR rubble bacteria would process the water differently from bacteria living on 'solid' pieces of LR (which are themselves just larger pieces of broken rocks).

as mentioned a few lines up, the bacteria in the outer portions of the live rock are using up all available O2 from the water in their job of nitrification, they can no longer live in the depths of the rock because nitrification bacteria require O2 to live, de-nitrification bacteria on the other hand can not live in the presence of O2 and will ONLY form in the depths of the rock that are void of O2, and small rubble or very pours rocks never become void of O2, in areas of high flow the levels of O2 go deeper into the rocks as well, your canister filter keeps a constant flow of fresh O2 filled water circulating around the rubble and it will always be abundant in O2 even in the center most portions of the rubble inside it.


I understand where you are coming from and I can see how it can be confusing.
The bacteria in the LR is what converts waste to nitrates - but that isn't the same thing as saying that LR causes nitrates.

sure it does, LR holds most of the bacteria that are breaking down waste, take all those bacteria away and you'll not have a nitrogen cycle (hard to keep a sterile environment without killing everything else though)

It is confusing but it might help if I give an example - sorry if it is silly but it is the best I can do on short notice.

Garbage trucks are required to convert curbside garbage into landfill waste.

Saying that increasing the amount of LR in a system will increase the amount of NO3 is like saying that increasing the number of garbage trucks will increase the amount of waste in the landfill.

the more trucks you've got delivering trash that is readily available will defiantly put more trash into the landfill. you're trucking it in and nothing is taking it out, it gets more in, thats simple math. the LR is the landfill, not the garbage truck.....

The garbage trucks and the LR are the capacity to process the waste -

no the garbage truck is the fish in your tank, the food you toss in that doesn't get ate and any other means of introducing waste into the system, the LR is the landfill, it's processing the waste. if the landfill is all small little spots throughout the country then there are no biological breakdowns in the waste and it'll forever be just a pile of garbage (like the rubble) but if it's a large landfill the waste is absorbed and goes through a complete nitrogen cycle and becomes compost and released as nitrogen gas (just like the bubbles from deep in the LR and from DSBs


the actual waste comes from the fish and food in the system.

yeap, the garbage trucks of the system as mentioned a line or two up.

Adding LR will not increase NO3, only the system's capacity to process fish poop and detritus - which is converted to NO3 (that's what's got you hung up). The LR can't make NO3 from nothing - it is dependant on the amount of raw waste. If that waste is a fixed amount, you can't keep adding LR to keep increasing your NO3 output - you can't create something from nothing.


you're not making something from nothing, the nitrogen cycle has stages, waste is broken down into ammonia, that ammonia is broken down into nitrites and those nitrites are broken down into nitrates and in situations where you have anaerobic conditions those nitrates are broken down into nitrogen gas and they bubble up and out of the water via gas exchange at the surface. unfortunately that last step is missing in your canister filter and in systems that have only small rock and high flow.


Not only does LR not add to nitrates, it actually reduces nitrates. It isn't as efficient at it as a pure anaerobic environment like you suggested, but it still does reduce nitrates. That is why we have LR in our tanks.

yeap we have large pieces of LR that have anaerobic areas and if we don't then NEVER will it ever convert NO3 to nitrogen gas.

Don't believe me? Just read up on LR. Or type "live rock reduce nitrates?" (without the quotes) in google and read what comes up.

i know exactly what works and how it works, I've only been doing this close to 30 yrs and unlike you after only 4 i didn't think i knew it all and considered myself a myth buster to things that have been proven in depth many times over.


To repeat myself for the last time (I hope).

Canister filters have gotten a bad rap as being nitrate factories.

it's not a bad rap, it's the truth the only way you can avoid it is by removing any bio-logical media from inside one, LR rubble included

enough time wasted on this thread, continue with your myth busting.

kc

[dragon_slayer]

SOMETHING FOR NOTHING

if you don't believe what i posted you can continue your myth busting by building a denitrator coil, you'll see first hand how they have nothing but water flow through a 75' length of 1/4OD tubing but as the water passes through the coil and starts to form bacteria (just like the LR rubble has on it) the output stream of water (which entered at the same levels at the tank) will first have an extreme elevation in NO2, onward of several hundred PPM, then as the coil matures those levels quickly drop and NO3 levels will jump to several hundred PPM then if you know what you're doing and adjust the flow rate appropriately they'll drop to 0ppm coming out of the coil.

at the end of about 5-6 weeks you then have a self regulating nitrate reduction apparatus that provides the tank with about 60 gph of waste free water, it's like getting a 60 gallon water change every day for free so you do get something for nothing :) the only thing going into the coil is tank water and it's only going down a little 75' length of tubing before it's put right back into the tank, a lot like a long siphoning hose.......

kc

[ninjafish]

enough time wasted on this thread, continue with your myth busting.

kc

Haha I almost believed you for a second there.

When I said something from nothing I meant that you couldn't keep increasing nitrates by adding LR - I still maintain that LR reduces nitrates but even if it didn't you can't make more NO3 just by adding rock if there isn't excess NH3 in the first place. It is the waste that determines how much nitrates you have - not the rock.
The coil is the same thing - you aren't getting something from nothing - you are feeding the bacteria in the coil with the same waste that the bacteria in the LR consume. The only difference is you are using the furthest reaches of the coil for anaerobic reactions because by the time the water reaches that area it has been deprived of its oxygen and it is the turf of the anaerobic bacteria.
I don't see how coil denitrifiers and rocks larger than softballs is any benefit to those of us here in the nano forum.


i know exactly what works and how it works, I've only been doing this close to 30 yrs and unlike you after only 4 i didn't think i knew it all and considered myself a myth buster to things that have been proven in depth many times over.

Were you serious when you wrote that? How long should I be in this hobby before I can come into other peoples' threads and act like I do know it all?

Seriously dude, a little etiquette goes a long way. There is absolutely no difference in the turnover rates inside the HOB filters and a canister filter. The HOB puts out much less flow, but is also much lower volume - so the turnover rate in the filter is the same as it would be with higher flow in a filter with greater volume. If you are such an expert on nanos, and LR pieces smaller than softballs don't work, and HOB and canister filters suck so bad, then why are we having such success? What should we be using instead?

For a nano tank, a canister filter with LR is the best filtration solution I have found (besides tying it into a much larger sump/system which isn't really a nano then). For two years my nitrates were undetectable (of course I was also doing weekly water changes, but that is something that I do with all my tanks) - if you have something constructive, like a better way of filtering our tanks, then by all means, share it with us 4 year guys.

- Chad

[ninjafish]

Sorry everyone for the confusion in this thread. Another member explained it best what I should have said in the first place.

And I'm not smoking crack I promise.

I am suggesting to not use the canister as a mechanical filter with all the floss and filter media that can in turn trap detritus and pollute your water - but instead to use it as a biological filter the same as a sump with LR (or a HOB with LR).

I was trying to state that if used that way, they don't have the drawbacks that have given canister filters a bad name in this hobby and are the same as the HOB that have been converted to be biological filters - exept they are bigger and take up less room in the display.

Sorry for making it all more complicated than it needed to be. Used as a boilogical filter, canister filters are a great option for a SW nano tank. It was as mechanical filters that they caused problems - just like with any mechanical SW filter that isn't kept total clean.

And especailly sorry to kc for getting all riled up. I was out of line and was really making things more complicated than necessary. No hard feelings I hope.
Thanks,

- Chad

[emoore]

I am a big fan of canister filters on my freshwater tanks. I am not convinced that small pieces of live rock won't have the same effect as the regular filter media (bio balls, etc...). Maybe if you use large pieces of live rock in the canister then the bacteria that converts NO3 to nitrogen can exist.

The bacteria that converts ammonia to NO2 and the bacteria that converts NO2 to N03 live on the surface of live rock which is oxygen rich. The bacteria that convert NO3 to nitrogen gas live near the center of live rock where it is oxygen poor. That's why I don't think small pieces of live rock will convert much NO3 to nitrogen but a larger piece of live rock might work better in a canister.

[just dave]

IME/O the "bad" thing about canister filters is that they are out of sight (and all buttoned up ) and ,therefore, out of mind as the saying goes. They also , for the most part, don't have the gas exchange capabilities of other types of filters. In most reef style tanks extra bio capabilities ( nitrification) are not needed. So in those cases if a canister is used as a mechanical/chemical filter and is serviced regularly it poses no problem. In the case of nanos where the possibilities of exceeding a tanks bio filtration ( nitrification) capabilities run higher ,the extra bio filtration ( nitrification) may prove helpful and the best way to do this is to pack it full of bio media. Though, as DS stated, nitrification without denitrification would just lead to high levels of nitrate and if the tank needs the extra bio media to aid in nitrification it more 'n likely lacks sufficient denitrification potential as well and the bio medias available coupled with the flow rates of canister filters are not going to provide any. I also don't see the rock you used at the sizes you used helping with denitrification either. However, the coupling of the canister to your nano gives water movement with a clean look and it also increases the water volume ( a conventional closed loop would not accomplish this as much) which aids in system stability. A sump would have done the same but the canister doesn't have the issues with noise, evaporation, and flooding (your auto top off poses a flooding potential) that a sump can have. It provides a nice refugium with or without the algae. Being sealed up it can be a problem if you experience a prolonged power outage. IMO getting one large piece of live rock to take the place of all the rubble would give you a better "mouse trap" and it would be easier to service the filter. But, hey, if it ain't broke......

All in all it looks very nice.

[BCreefmaker]

first of all i got to say the garbage truck analogy thing confused the heck out of me, lol but anyways. i love the LR debate going on here, seems pretty heated.
first thing i would just like to know is how much is ur flow through the canister ninja? secondly on ur explanation on how to put together a set up like yours i was really wondering how you stop the water from flooding your canister when you turn it off and open it, shut off valves on the return lines?
my other questions are really for dragon slayer cuz i just need some clarification on what hes suggesting. first off i just like to know if the "no oxygen zone" you described that blueish center in the middle of the rock i saw when i cracked open a peice of my LR? secondly i thought you could only produce nitrate, if there was nitrite, and nitrite needs ammonia. so the LR in the filter will quickly turn the ammonia into no3, a less deadly type of nitrogen. third, your coil thingy you described.... where exactly is the "no oxygen zone" in the tube for the Anaerobic bacteria to grow??

[ninjafish]

Just dave,

As for the topoff being a flooding potential, I used a laboratory grade diaphragm pump like this one :

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e91/honda919/070312008.jpg

It is rated for pressure applications up to 110psi! Nothing is gauranteed but, I still wasn't worried about back-flow through the pump. It was more likely that a filter hose would burst or a seam in my tank give out before anything forced water through the piston of the pump.

- Chad

[ninjafish]

BCreefmaker,

I have only ever used Eheim canisters on my nanos so I don't know how the other ones work. All I did was just off the pump and flip a swtich on the hose coupler - this action also closes ball valves in each of the hoses. After that, I just pop the four latches and lift the top off the canister. I takeout the media baskets and dump the water in the canister down the drain, then fill it with new water. Then close everything up again and that was my water change.

- Chad

[ninjafish]

BCreefmaker,
And I'm sorry about the garbage truck analogy - I could see right away that it was tough to understand. :eek:
I was just trying to explain that NO3 cannont be created from thin air - it must be converted from raw waste (just like the garbage trucks do not 'create' the garbage.)
I can't see the addition of LR in an established system increasing the nitrates... the only way that could happen is if you had more waste than the current mass of LR could process. If that's the case - then it is a dang good thing that you did add the LR because nitrates are a heck of a lot better than unprocessed amonia.
I was just trying to say that reducing the amount of LR (or LR rubble) isn't an option for reducing nitrates - just like reducing the number of garbage trucks isn't an option for reducing landfill waste. The garbage isn't going to dissapear just because you don't process/convert it - it's going to pile up somewhere! If you have the same of waste in your system and you reduce the amount of LR, just because the LR is converting it to nitrates, you are going to have bigger problems on your hands...

- Chad

[SaltyMember]

Summary for anyone who is scratching their head

A cannister filter will be less of an eyesore in a nano tank
>True

A cannister filter will allow for more water volume in the system - that's a good thing in terms of stability and water quality.
>True

A cannister filter will allow more room for LR.
>True

LR is a vital component of water quality.
>True. No one will argue that LR is not a vital component of water quality. But, there but there is a difference between how LR functions sitting in a tank compared to pieces of rubble in a cannister. I think this is what dragon-slayer is trying to explain.

LR lowers nitrate levels
>True, if it is in a tank where there can be lower flow through deeper areas of the rock where anaerobic bacteria is present to break down nitrates. Small pieces LR rubble in a cannister filter will function the same as bioballs or other biomedia. In other words, it will convert ammonia and nitrite but will not be able to convert nitrate due to the lack of anaerobic bacteria.

A cannister filter, properly set up and maintained, will not produce nitrates - it will reduce nitrates.
>See above.

[dendro982]

Used canister filter (Fluval 404) for a 90g tank with high bioload.
Canister was fed by raw water, that passed inside the filter through filter foam, filter floss to the 2 baskets of Matrix biomedia, with phosphate remover in the last basket.

It accumulated a lot of debris and had to be cleaned once in 3 days.

It would be much better not to use it as a filter, but supply it by already filtered water from the sump. If it would be possible to modify the canister filter's pump for a low flow and use DeNitrate (or PondMatrix in case of higher flow), it could be better for denitrification. Didn't tried myself, though.

[KafudaFish]

Has anyone seen a discussion on the rates of nitrification vs. denitrification? Just curious.
I would still think this system would have both processes because the rubble is nitrifying the waste and the LR on display would be doing both. If the LR can denitrify the waste why wouldn't this method work? Again just curious.

[rsteagall]

I think Siporax in this scenario definitely provides the most and best method to increase surface area in such a small area. Other than that... ninjafish, have you ever considered a DSB in any of your nano configurations? I think a configuration exactly like yours with like a DSB of about 5" might work well. Can someone confirm this or would the dsb be too small to do much work? What about a thick rubble substrate for a cryptic zone?

[ninjafish]

I don't know if it would work or not - I have heard that DSBs need to be larger with really great diversity in order to run properly.
I am not a big fan of DSBs - or even sand in general - I know that they have benefits with denitrification... I have just smelled too many sandbeds to be comfortable with the idea :eek2:

- Chad

[just dave]

It was over filling the tank that I saw as the most potential problem.

[ninjafish]

Oh gotcha... good point.
On the two gallon, I finally settled on a rate of 3/4 of a milliliter of water every three minutes - this was the rate of evaporation in real-time. I think I was also lucky because it was in a climate controlled office - only every month or so did I have to make a slight correction to the water level - either up or down depending on if the month had been drier or more humid than normal. It sure made maintence a lot easier. The longest I ever left the tank was for 14 days when I went on vacation. I did a water change before I left and filled up the topoff bucket - when I got back, I just had to clean the film off the glass. Not bad for a 2gal tank.

- Chad

[just dave]

A small tube that went through the bottom to just above the water level connected to the top off reservoir would act as a safety should an overfill occur. It could be hidden by attaching small rock to it.

[rickbirdman]

i have been using a rena xp2 canister filter just like ninjafish (minus light and cheato) for over a year on a 2gal and 6gal and i feel that it perfroms greater than any filter media. the added water volume is a plus in our nano tanks.

[ninjafish]

Thanks rick! That's good to hear from someone who has actually tried it.
Do you happen to have threads and pictures of your setups? (I never seem to have any luck with the search function here).

- Chad

[elmatth1]

The December nTOTM winner, Victoria, says she uses a canister filter, even without the LR and cheato, and I don't think anyone can argue that hers is one of the nicest tanks out there.

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1002853&highlight=December+nTOTM

[ninjafish]

Wow that tank is a beauty! I don't know how I missed it earlier.

- Chad

[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.

[ninjafish]

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://archive.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

[BCreefmaker]

well you would assume thats what people would expect in a nano fourm :D

[just dave]

<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.

[BCreefmaker]

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...

[just dave]

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.

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/59396all_picos_rc.JPG

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/5939622_rc.jpg

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/59396Aqua_Vase.JPG

[ninjafish]

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

[ninjafish]

<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

[BCreefmaker]

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?

[Agu]

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.

[ninjafish]

Agu,
Thanks for the info. You raised some really good points, as always.
Cheers,
- Chad

[Agu]

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:

[ninjafish]

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

[hayabusa2003]

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.

[ninjafish]

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